/  O  i  "2-3  t  2k  ^ 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

I 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

r 

Presented  by 

The  Wi'c^  ow  o  ^  a  ecprpe  "Duo'c^n 


.  BT  101  .C5  1909  C.2 
,  Clarke,  William  Newton,  1841 
’  -1912. 

The  Christian  doctrine  of 

L  __GQd  _ _ _  _ _ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/christiandoctrin00clar_1 


The  International 

Theological  Library 


EDITORS’  PREFACE 


HEOLOGY  has  made  great  and  rapid  advances 


in  recent  years.  New  lines  of  investigation  have 
been  opened  up,  fresh  light  has  been  cast  upon 
many  subjects  of  the  deepest  interest,  and  the  historical 
method  has  been  applied  with  important  results.  This 
has  prepared  the  way  for  a  Library  of  Theological 
Science,  and  has  created  the  demand  for  it.  It  has  also 
made  it  at  once  opportune  and  practicable  now  to  se¬ 
cure  the  services  of  specialists  in  the  different  depart¬ 
ments  of  Theology,  and  to  associate  them  in  an  enter¬ 
prise  which  will  furnish  a  record  of  Theological 
inquiry  up  to  date. 

This  Library  is  designed  to  cover  the  whole  field  of 
Christian  Theology.  Each  volume  is  to  be  complete 
in  itself,  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  will  form  part  of  a 
carefully  planned  whole.  One  of  the  Editors  is  to  pre¬ 
pare  a  volume  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  which  will 
give  the  history  and  literature  of  each  department,  as 
well  as  of  Theology  as  a  whole. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


The  Library  is  intended  to  form  a  series  of  Text- 
Books  for  Students  of  Theology. 

The  Authors,  therefore,  aim  at  conciseness  and  com¬ 
pactness  of  statement.  At  the  same  time,  they  have  in 
view  that  large  and  increasing  class  of  students,  in  other 
departments  of  inquiry,  who  desire  to  have  a  systematic 
and  thorough  exposition  of  Theological  Science.  Tech¬ 
nical  matters  will  therefore  be  thrown  into  the  form  of 
notes,  and  the  text  will  be  made  as  readable  and  attract¬ 
ive  as  possible. 

The  Library  is  international  and  interconfessional.  It 
will  be  conducted  in  a  catholic  spirit,  and  in  the 
interests  of  Theology  as  a  science. 

Its  aim  will  be  to  give  full  and  impartial  statements 
both  of  the  results  of  Theological  Science  and  of  the 
questions  which  are  still  at  issue  in  the  different 
departments. 

The  Authors  will  be  scholars  of  recognized  reputation 
in  the  several  branches  of  study  assigned  to  them.  They 
will  be  associated  with  each  other  and  with  the  Editors 
in  the  effort  to  provide  a  series  of  volumes  which  may 
adequately  represent  the  present  condition  of  investi¬ 
gation,  and  indicate  the  way  for  further  progress. 

Charles  A.  Briggs 
Stewart  D.  F.  Salmond 


The  International  Theological  Library 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 

THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA.  By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
D.Litt.,  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA¬ 
MENT.  By  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  S^Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  FRANCIS 
Crawford  Burkitt,  M.A.,  Norrisian  Professor  of  Divinity,  University 
of  Cambridge. 

OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY.  By  Henry  PRESERVED  Smith,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Old  Testament  Literature,  Meadville,  Pa.  [^Noro  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY  HISTORY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By 

F'rancis  Brown,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.Litt.,  President  and  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  A.  B.  Davidson, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

\_No'io  Ready. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA¬ 
MENT.  By  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  B.D.,  Minister  United  Free  Church, 
Dundonald,  Scotland. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  N  EW  TESTA  M  ENT.  By  CASPAR  Rene 
Gregory,  D.D.,  LL.D  ,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the 

University  of  Leipzig.  \^Now  Ready. 

THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  By  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

A  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  By 

Arthur  C.  McGiffert,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Church  History,  Union  Theo¬ 
logical  Seminary,  New  York.  \^Noiv  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY  HISTORY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By 

Frank  C.  Porter,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  George  B.  Stevens, 
D.  D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University,  New 
Haven,  Conn.  ^N'ow  Ready. 

BIBLICAL  ARCHAEOLOGY.  By  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

THE  ANCIENT  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  By  Robert  Rainy, -D.D., 
LL.D.,  sometime  Principal  of  New  College,  Edinburgh.  \Now  Ready. 


THE  EARLY  LATIN  CHURCH. 


\_Ant/ior  to  be  announced  later. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


THE  LAT E R  LAT IN  CHURCH.  {A nthor  to  be  announced  later. 

THE  GREEK  AND  EASTERN  CHURCHES.  By  W.  F.  Adeney,  D.D., 
Principal  of  Independent  College,  Manchester,  \_Now  Ready 

THE  REFORMATION.  By  T.  M.  LiNDSAY,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  United 
Free  College,  Glasgow.  \2  vols.  Now  Ready. 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  LATIN  COUNTRIES  SINCE  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
TRENT.  By  PAUL  SABATIER,  D.  Litt. 

SYMBOLICS.  By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of 
Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.  By  G.  P.  FiSHER,  D.D  , 
LL.D  ,  sometime  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,  Conn.  \_Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CHRISTIAN  INSTITUTIONS.  By  A.  V.  G.  Allen,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Protestant  Episcopal  Divinity  School, 
Cambridge,  Mass.  \^Now  Ready. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.  By  Robert  Flint,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  some- 

time  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  RELIGIONS.  By  George  F.  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Professor  in  Harvard  University. 

APOLOGETICS.  By  A.  B.  Bruce,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

\Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD.  By  WiLLiAM  N.  Clarke,  D.  D., 
Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Hamilton  Theological  Seminary, 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN.  By  WiLLiAM  P.  PATERSON,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Divinity,  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OFCHRIST.  By  H.  R.  MACKINTOSH,  Ph.D. ,  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SALVATION.  By  George  B.  Ste¬ 
vens,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University. 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.  By  WILLIAM  Adams 
Brown,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  By  Newman  Smyth,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congrega¬ 
tional  Church,  New  Haven.  [Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  PASTOR  AND  THE  WORKING  CHURCH.  By 

Washington  Gladden,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congregational  Church,  Columbus, 
Ohio.  [No7v  Ready. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  PREACHER.  The  Rev.  A.  E.  Garvie,  M.A.,  D.D., 

Principal  of  New  College,  London,  ^England. 

RABBINICAL  LITERATURE.  By  S.  SCHECHTER,  M.A.,  President  of 
the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 

OTHER  VOLUMES  WILL  BE  ANNOUNCED  LATER. 


^Tbe  flnternational  ZTbeoIOQical  library. 


EDITED  BY 

CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt., 

Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 

Seminary,  New  York ; 

AND 

The  Late  STEWART  D.  F.  SALMOND,  D.D., 

Sometime  Principal,  and  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  and  New  Testament 
Exegesis,  United  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD. 
By  WILLIAM  NEWTON  CLARKE,  D.D. 


International  Theological  library 


THE 

CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 


/ 

WILLIAM  NEWTON  CLARKE,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  IN  COLGATE  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1909 


COPYRIGHT,  1909,  BY 
CHARLES  Scribner’s  sons 

Published  March,  1909 


DEUS  ACCIPIAT 


PREFACE 


The  work  that  was  entrusted  to  me  by  the  General  Editors 
of  the  International  Theologieal  Library  was  simply  the 
presentation  of  the  conception  of  God  that  is  characteristic 
of  the  Christian  religion.  I  was  not  sent  to  search  for  God, 
but  rather  to  report  as  well  as  I  might  what  the  Christian 
faith  testifies  concerning  him.  It  has  seemed  to  me  that  this 
single  commission  was  enough  for  me  to  undertake,  and  I 
have  attempted  nothing  more.  No  report  of  the  literature  of 
the  subject  will  be  found  upon  these  pages,  nor  any  quotation 
of  other  men^s  work,  nor  any  controversy.  It  is  the  sole  en¬ 
deavour  of  the  book  to  set  forth  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God 
for  the  present  day:  not  the  doctrine  of  the  past,  or  of  the 
future,  but  the  thought  of  God  that  we  may  now  entertain  if 
we  follow  the  leading  of  Jesus  Christ  the  revealer.  So  far  as 
I  have  the  power,  I  have  sought  to  be  faithful  both  to  the 
ancient  light  and  to  the  modern,  and  I  have  hoped  that  my 
presentation  might  bear  reasonably  well  the  tests  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  time.  There  are  many  ways  of  dealing  with  the  vast  and 
glorious  theme,  and  certainly  there  must  be  room  for  a  book 
that  simply  aims  to  show  forth  the  doctrine  as  Christian  faith 
may  receive  it  now. 

I  have  written  in  the  full  conviction  that  the  light  which 
Jesus  Christ  gives  us  upon  God  is  the  true  light,  and  that 
God  is  such  a  Being  as  he  inspires  us  to  love  and  trust.  Some 
things  we  believe  about  God  that  have  been  learned  from 
other  sources  than  his  revealing,  but  we  may  be  sure  that  of 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


God’s  character  and  relation  to  our  life  he  has  given  us  the 
true  knowledge.  His  God  and  Father  is  the  living  God.  Of 
course  I  know  that  there  are  many  intelligent  minds  who 
cannot  receive  this,  and  that  many  who  believe  it  most  de¬ 
voutly  would  differ  widely  from  me  in  the  portrayal  of  that 
living  God.  But  I  can  say  that  I  have  earnestly  sought  to 
make  the  spirit  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  determinative  of 
every  view  of  doctrine  that  is  presented  here;  and  while  I 
have  nothing  to  claim  for  my  own  work  in  presentation,  I  do 
claim  that  the  substance  of  that  which  I  present  is  the  heart 
of  the  Master’s  message  to  the  world,  and  for  its  own  sake  is 
worthy  of  all  acceptation. 

It  will  easily  be  believed  that  in  so  vast  a  subject  the  diffi¬ 
culty  of  satisfactory  arrangement  is  very  great.  One  may 
almost  say  that  every  part  of  the  subject  implies  every  other 
part,  and  cannot  be  treated  without  it.  Accordingly  a  writer 
finds  himself  making  use  of  matters  that  are  yet  to  be  un¬ 
folded,  and  using  again  what  has  already  been  discussed. 
But  since  the  difficulty  resides  in  the  nature  of  the  subjeet, 
I  have  ceased  to  be  anxious  about  it,  and  have  allowed  antici¬ 
pations  and  repetitions  to  come  as  they  will,  when  the  sub¬ 
ject-matter  brings  them.  As  to  the  general  arrangement  that 
I  have  adopted,  I  may  say  that  it  is  the  one  that  seems  to  me 
best  suited  to  the  character  of  the  Christian  doetrine.  It  is  the 
order  of  religion,  rather  than  of  philosophy  or  of  science;  for 
I  conceive  that  in  religion  is  found  the  clearest  way  to  the 
knowledge  of  God. 

Inasmuch  as  I  have  diseussed  the  same  subjects  in  other 
writings,  I  have  here  and  there  used  an  earlier  expression  of 
my  own,  without  indicating  the  quotation.  In  general,  the 
position  that  is  held  in  this  book  is  the  same  as  that  which 
I  have  occupied  before.  But  of  course  a  man  is  no  more 


PREFACE 


IX 


bound  to  agree  with  his  earlier  self  than  with  any  other  man, 
and  I  have  felt  myself  entirely  free  to  depart  from  positions 
that  I  once  held,  whenever  better  light  or  sounder  processes 
enabled  me  to  do  so.  The  claim  of  truth  is  far  more  com¬ 
pelling  than  the  claim  of  consistency,  and  I  respond  to  it  with 
a  far  more  loyal  heart. 

WILLIAM  NEWTON  CLARKE. 


Colgate  University,  )  ^ 

TT  T.T  }  January,  1909. 

Hamilton,  New  York.  ) 


t  ;  >  '  -Xt*'^  ■•  .  *  '‘' -3*  '  > 


r  T  'iv 

/<  )> 


■■  u 


•'■''Awj*  <i  » 


.  ^  -^<  5^ 


•*  ^  •  »  ‘  r  :  i  \  X  i  *  *  .  jT,'  .  *  t  .V  •  -  •  ■  .  '  '  At  ' '  ^ 


*•  ,  •*  ! 


u'?  -  ■.■>-'4'  .!'•('> 


'^*  i?),' 


:•  r-*  *»  .  .,•’.  c,'  ,  rw.ri 

i::  ’•■  •., W 


#•1  -w  ^ 


IjVrry?. 


.  •  V  r  •"% ' 


',  '4  y‘ ■  'B  ;.,  'f' ■  *^ 


■* _ .1  .  *  »  i  v 


^4 


;s  '-  « 

'  |g 


t.  ^*1 


/  ‘  .,1  ‘  .  I  T 

r  '  /  '  '-Si 


*»?';  f  Jf-r.! 


Ha. 


<"'  ^/‘.iLSJBBffii ■  •  •  XXX' x-^ 


;  ■  ^  i ,'  ',ri .  •  '  •/!■  •  .‘Ti;  ’  ayr. 

;4%  ; , ...  .  .v  ;  '  jmjw 

sfy-.v"'.,  ,  X- ^  r 


r>;a^VAv-‘ 

.  /.  •A'inei' 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION . 1 

1.  The  Theme  and  the  Treatment  .  .  .  .  1 

2.  The  Sources . 11 

(1)  The  Ancient  Ethical  Conception  .  .  .11 

(2)  The  Testimony  of  Jesus  ....  20 

(3)  The  Early  Christian  Experience  ...  39 

(4)  The  Historical  Development ....  47 

I.  GOD . 56 

1.  Character . 56 

2.  Personality . 59 

3.  Goodness . 70 

4.  Love . 83 

5.  Holiness . 94 

6.  Wisdom . 107 

7.  Unity  in  Character . 115 

II.  GOD  AND  MEN . 135 

1.  Creator . 135 

2.  Father . 153 

3.  Sovereign . 164 

4.  Moral  Governor  .  174 

5.  Providence . 192 

6.  Saviour . 212 

7.  Trinity . 227 

8.  God  in  Human  Life . 249 

xi 


XU 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

III.  GOD  AND  THE  UNIVERSE . 265 

1.  Monotheism . 265 

2.  The  Two  Units  of  Existence  ....  272 

3.  “God  is  a  Spirit” . 276 

4.  God  the  Source . 282 

5.  The  Self-Existent  ’ .  ’ . 289 

6.  The  Eternal . 294 

7.  The  Infinite  . . 299 

8.  The  Unchangeable . 309 

9.  Transcendence . 311 

10.  Immanence . 320 

11.  Omniscience . 343 

12.  Omnipotence  .  .  .  .  * .  .  .  .  357 

IV.  EVIDENCE . 357 

1.  The  Question  and  the  Evidence  .  .  .  357 

2.  Evidence  from  the  Rational  ....  375 

3.  Evidence  from  the  Spiritual  ....  402 

4.  The  Great  Objection . 431 

5.  The  Christian  Belief  in  God  ....  462 


INDEX 


473 


THE 

CHEISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 

OF  GOD 


INTRODUCTION 

1.  THE  THEME  AND  THE  TREATMENT 

Christianity  is  a  doctrine  of  God  and  a  life  in  God.  It 
is  scarcely  more;  for  its  great  peculiarity  is  its  proclamation 
of  a  work  of  gracious  help  from  God  to  man,  performed 
because  God  is  what  he  is,  and  all  its  substance  beyond  this 
consists  in  the  unfolding  of  what  it  means,  in  experience  and 
thought,  that  God  is  such  a  Being  as  Jesus  Christ  makes 
known.  Christianity  is  religion  with  such  a  God,  and 
Christian  theology  is  the  doctrine  of  such  a  God,  and  of  that 
which  follows  from  his  being. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  volume  to  present  the  Chris¬ 
tian  conception  of  God,  his  character  and  his  relations, 
especially  his  relations  with  men.  The  aim  is  practical,  as 
becomes  a  Christian  study,  and  the  work  is  inspired  by  the 
hope  that  to  the  reader  God  may  become  more  clearly  and 
truly  known.  This  is  a  lofty  aim,  but  the  endeavour  may  not 
be  in  vain.  Certainly  we  may  be  sure  that  the  God  and 
Father  of  Jesus  desires  to  be  more  clearly  and  truly  known, 
and  our  means  of  acquaintance  with  him  are  such  that  any 
reverent  student  may  perhaps  help  his  fellows  toward  such 
better  knowledge. 

The  title,  “The  Christian  Doctrine  of  God,’^  is  not  without 
ambiguity.  In  fact,  it  has  been  understood  in  various  ways 
in  the  history  of  Christian  thought,  and  it  is  necessary  at  the 
outset  to  indicate  in  what  sense  it  is  now  employed. 

Theology  has  usually  assumed  that  the  Christian  doctrine 


2 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


of  God  is  simply  identical  with  the  conception,  or  group  of 
conceptions,  that  the  Bible  contains.  It  has  been  taken  for 
granted  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
yield  a  single  and  consistent  conception  of  God,  and  that  this 
must  be  accepted  by  Christianity  as  its  interpretation  of  the 
divine  Being.  If  this  view  were  adopted  the  present  task 
would  be  to  collect  and  formulate  the  utterances  of  the  Bible 
about  God,  and  send  forth  the  summary  of  these  as  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine.  But  in  the  theological  classification  that  now 
prevails  such  analysis  and  synthesis  of  the  biblical  material  is 
the  work  of  biblical  theology,  and  the  results  of  such  labour 
have  already  been  presented  in  the  volumes  of  the  present 
series  that  are  devoted  to  that  department.  But  apart  from 
this  incidental  consideration,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God 
is  not  co-extensive  and  identical  with  the  doctrine  of  God  that 
is  brought  forth  from  the  Scriptures  by  the  study  of  biblical 
theology.  The  Scriptures  bring  us  the  Christian  conception, 
but  they  bring  us  much  besides,  for  they  preserve  the  record 
and  influence  of  much  that  was  left  behind  in  the  course  of 
the  progressive  revelation.  It  is  for  us  to  distinguish  things 
that  differ,  and  use  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures  in  loyalty  to 
their  historical  character.  And  it  is  further  true  that  the 
Christian  doctrine  does  not  inherit  solely  from  the  Bible.  It 
inherits  also  from  the  long  course  of  Christian  history;  for 
the  Christian  mind  has  been  at  work  upon  the  thought  of  God, 
and  the  thought  of  God  upon  the  Christian  mind,  for  almost 
two  thousand  years,  and  the  Christian  doctrine  is  the  outcome 
from  the  entire  process.  It  is  not  yet  completed,  nor  will  it 
ever  be.  A  true  doctrine  of  God  will  be  always  the  same 
and  yet  ever  changing,  for  the  human  apprehension  of  the 
great  reality  will  be  altered  from  age  to  age,  and  each  period 
will  require  its  own  forms  of  thought  for  the  abiding*  truth. 
Grounded  in  the  Bible,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  has 
partly  been  developed  since  the  Bible  was  written,  and  has 
now,  as  in  other  ages,  to  take  its  form  for  the  present  time. 
Hence  the  present  discussion,  while  it  finds  its  inspiration  and 
main  substance  in  the  sacred  writings  of  Christianity,  will  not 


THE  THEME  AND  THE  TREATMENT 


3 


treat  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  as  merely  the  equivalent 
of  the  biblical  utterances. 

It  has  sometimes  been  assumed  that  at  some  point  in  its 
history  the  Christian  Church  has  obtained  a  doctrine  of  God 
that  may  be  accepted  as  sufficient  and  final.  Doctrine  ex¬ 
pressed  in  creeds  has  often  been  practically  regarded  thus  by 
those  who  held  allegiance  to  the  creeds;  and  theology  has 
been  expected,  if  not  required,  to  expound  the  authorized 
conceptions.  According  to  the  full  ecclesiastical  view  of  re¬ 
ligion,  the  Church  alone  has  authority  to  declare  doctrine, 
and  doctrine  declared  by  her  is  final,  even  concerning  God. 
Even  where  there  is  no  such  acknowledgment  of  the  sole 
authority  of  the  Church,  many  have  practically  taken  as 
complete  and  final  the  doctrine  that  their  own  branch  of  the 
Church  has  formulated.  Various  schools  of  Christian 
thought  have  had  their  doctrines  of  God,  diverging  though 
with  much  in  common,  and  each  has  held  to  its  own,  especially 
to  its  own  peculiarities,  as  if  improvement  were  not  to  be 
expected.  But  the  history  of  our  doctrine  is  not  now  to  be 
traced,  and  there  will  be  no  opportunity  to  select  the  best  from 
among  its  various  historical  forms.  Moreover,  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  God  is  not  identical  with  any  statement  that  has 
been  made  in  a  creed  or  put  forth  by  an  ecclesiastical  author¬ 
ity.  Claims  to  that  effect  will  not  bear  examination,  and  the 
theory  on  which  they  rest  is  untenable.  Nowhere  along  the 
course  of  the  past  has  the  doctrine  been  completed.  The 
growth  of  a  living  thought  is  never  finished,  least  of  all  the 
growth  of  this  greatest  of  all  conceptions.  Hence  the  present 
treatment  will  not  consist  in  the  selection  and  unfolding  of 
some  doctrine  of  God  that  has  been  proclaimed  by  church  or 
creed  in  some  past  time,  or  is  offered  as  sufficient  now. 

It  is  sometimes  thought,  again,  that  the  Christian  doctrine 
consists  in  that  which  has  been  common  to  good  Christian 
belief  in  all  ages.  There  have  been  divergences  on  this  side 
and  on  that,  but  the  specialties  of  individuals  or  groups  may 
be  ignored:  the  Christian  doctrine  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
central  consensus,  the  persisting  view,  which  Christendom 


4 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OP  GOD 


has  held  in  common.  But  neither  is  this  definition  accepted 
here.  True  thought  concerning  God  has  always  been  at  the 
heart  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  but  it  is  not  a  fact  that  the 
consensus,  if  we  could  discover  it,  could  be  identified  with  the 
genuine  Christian  conception.  To  the  genuine  conception 
the  persisting  belief  has  done  justice  only  in  part.  It  has 
been  a  growing  thought  of  God,  variable  with  the  variable¬ 
ness  of  the  Christian  people  and  their  life,  influenced  by  the 
temporary  peculiarities  of  their  mental  practice,  changing 
with  the  extent  of  their  knowledge,  impoverished  in  their  times 
of  spiritual  decline,  and  progressively  enriched  by  their  long 
experience.  Evidently  we  cannot  expect  to  identify  the  com¬ 
mon  element  in  all  this,  and  if  we  could  find  it  we  could  not 
call  it  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God. 

By  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  is  meant,  in  the  present 
discussion,  the  conception  of  God  which  Christian  faith  and 
thought  propose  for  the  present  time,  in  view  of  the  Bible,  and 
of  the  history,  and  of  all  sound  knowledge  and  experience, 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Revealer.  It  is 
the  doctrine  concerning  which  we  can  say,  at  the  point  at 
which  we  now  stand,  that  it  is  true  if  Jesus  Christ  does  reveal 
God  truly.  It  is  the  view  of  God  for  which  we  may  fairly 
claim  that  Christianity  stands  responsible,  in  the  presence  of 
such  life  and  knowledge  as  surround  us  now.  This  volume 
is  designed  to  present  if  possible  the  conception  of  God  for 
which  Christianity  now  stands.  It  is  a  doctrine  that  is 
grounded  in  the  Christian  revelation,  developed  in  history,  and 
now  restated  once  more  after  many  times,  in  the  presence  of 
modern  knowledge. 

This  is  the  only  tenable  and  the  only  Christian  definition. 
The  Christian  view  of  God  comes  to  us  from  Jesus  Christ, 
who  lifted  older  conceptions  to  fresh  glory  and  gave  them 
new  power.  In  him  it  came  from  God  himself.  It  was 
never  a  fixed  and  unchangeable  deposit  of  truth,  for  even  if 
it  had  been  possible  to  give  such  a  deposit  of  truth  concerning 
God,  neither  human  language  nor  human  thought  was  ever 
capable  of  receiving  and  holding  it. 


THE  THEME  AND  THE  TREATMENT 


5 


The  Christian  view  of  God  came  from  Jesus  not  as 
finished  once  for  all,  but  as  a  living,  growing  thing.  It  has 
lived  in  Christian  experience  in  various  degrees  of  strength 
and  weakness,  clearness  and  obscurity,  always  in  forms 
supplied  to  it  by  existing  life.  As  it  came  alive  to  other  ages, 
so  it  has  come  alive  to  ours,  and  as  alive  we  must  treat  it.  It 
claims  to  be  truth,  truth  in  the  midst  of  truth,  truth  supreme, 
and  like  other  truth  it  must  be  apprehended  as  men  are  able. 
It  must  now  fit  in  with  other  truth,  just  as  it  fitted  in  with 
truth  known  in  other  periods.  It  must  now  be  apprehended 
as  truly,  clearly  and  Christianly  as  is  now  possible,  and  be  set 
in  its  due  place  among  the  other  views  of  reality  that  this  age 
entertains.  In  so  far  as  this  is  done,  we  shall  have  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  God  for  the  present  time.  It  will  be 
Jesus’  own  doctrine,  and  the  biblical  doctrine,  and  the 
historical  doctrine,  brought  into  the  present  age.  It  will  be 
the  latest  historical  form  of  that  conception  of  God  which  we 
owe  to  Jesus  Christ.  We  shall  pass  it  on  to  our  successors, 
and  it  will  be  their  privilege  and  duty  to  state  it  yet  again. 

The  main  purpose  in  this  book  is  to  state  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  God — not  to  prove  it,  but  to  present  it.  The 
method  of  this  endeavour  must  correspond  to  the  nature  of 
the  enterprise,  and  a  few  words  about  it  may  be  recorded  here. 

It  is  necessary  first  to  grasp  the  thought  of  God  that  is 
given  in  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  it  is  who 
gives  us  the  true  point  of  view  and  the  true  knowledge.  We 
must  endeavour  to  become  acquainted  with  God  in  the  man¬ 
ner  that  he  commends  to  us,  and  to  enter  into  the  benefit  of 
such  acquaintance.  The  Christian  doctrine  holds  that  God 
is  such  a  Being  as  Jesus  shows  him  to  be,  so  that  one  who 
knows  him  thus  will  never  need  to  make  essential  revolution 
in  his  thought  of  him.  In  his  own  soul  and  in  all  his  revealing 
Jesus  had  to  do  with  the  real  God,  the  God  who  exists,  the 
same  forever,  and  in  such  a  God  it  is  forever  safe  to  believe. 
The  fact  that  we  obtain  knowledge  about  him  from  other 
sources  besides  Jesus  makes  no  difficulty  for  the  Christian 


6 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


faith.  There  are  great  fields  of  fact  into  which  his  revelation 
did  not  enter,  and  in  which  new  light  is  sure  to  arise  as  our 
knowledge  grows,  extending  and  enriching  our  idea  of  him 
whom  we  adore.  But  the  Christian  doctrine  affirms  un- 
waveringly  that  the  view  of  God  which  Jesus  gives  is  forever 
true,  an  unalterable  verity,  changing  for  us  only  by  being 
better  known.  As  it  is  apprehended  more  worthily,  of  course 
it  will  open  again  and  again  in  fresh  glory,  but  the  new  glory 
will  be  the  old  glory  better  understood.  With  such  a  doc¬ 
trine  set  before  us,  it  must  be  our  first  work  to  make  the 
central  substance  of  it  our  own.  The  revelation  of  God  that 
has  been  made  in  Jesus  Christ  is  the  heart  of  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  God,  in  this  age  as  in  every  other. 

Here  we  have  to  do  with  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  events 
of  his  career,  which  we  must  interpret  with  the  best  wisdom 
that  we  can  command.  But  his  contribution  to  the  doctrine 
is  not  all  contained  in  his  written  words,  or  in  the  records  of 
his  life,  for  in  their  experience  he  imparted  to  living  men  a 
living  gift  that  transfigured  all  their  dealings  with  God,  and 
transfigured  even  God  himself.  All  this  we  must  understand 
through  historical  imagination  entering  into  the  life  of  van¬ 
ished  days,  and  above  all  by  the  discernment  of  the  spiritual 
eye,  the  sympathetic  perception  of  the  Christian  soul.  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  must  be  formed  from  ancient  materials  by 
gathering  those  elements  that  are  spiritually  characteristic 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  building  them  into  a  structhre  that  cor¬ 
responds  to  their  nature.  These  alone  may  enter.  If  any¬ 
where  in  our  biblical  material  or  elsewhere  we  find  a  thought 
that  does  not  agree  with  the  spirit  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus, 
it  must  contribute  nothing  to  our  construction  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine.  But  that  rich  total  of  spiritual  truth  which 
does  accord  with  him  is  ours  to  use. 

It  may  easily  be  called  narrow  thus  to  take  a  single  teach¬ 
ing  as  the  core  of  our  supreme  doctrine.  So  it  might  be  if 
that  teaching  were  not  such  as  it  is,  but  when  we  discern  its 
quality  the  suspicion  of  narrowness  passes  away.  Jesus 
does  not  bring  us  a  doctrine  of  God,  he  brings  us  God.  His 


THE  THEME  AND  THE  TREATMENT 


7 


word  is  not  philosophical,  but  religious.  He  does  not  explain 
God,  but  looks  into  his  face,  and  leads  us  to  do  the  same. 
Among  the  great  teachers  of  the  world  he  is  the  One  who  gives 
us  God  as  a  living  reality,  to  be  known  in  actual  life.  Under 
his  leading  we  know  who  God  is  before  we  begin  to  discuss 
him.  It  is  the  glory  of  the  Christian  conception  of  God  that 
it  is  first  of  all  a  religious  conception,  and  it  is  so  noble  a 
religious  conception  that  man  can  form  none  nobler  or  more 
satisfactory.  No  authority  or  hint  of  Jesus  limits  us  to  learn¬ 
ing  about  God  from  him  alone,  but  no  school  equal  to  his  for 
learning  this  great  lesson  is  known  to  men,  and  Christianity 
is  not  to  be  reproached  for  narrowness  because  it  learns  of 
him. 

The  first  effect  of  this  mighty  knowledge  of  God  thrown 
out  into  the  world  of  men  meets  us  in  the  early  Christian 
experience.  Here  we  see  how  great  it  is,  and  perceive  its 
nature  more  clearly.  Beginning  from  this,  we  have  to  deal 
with  the  fact  that  the  Christian  thought  of  God  has  lived 
through  all  the  Christian  period,  and  been  apprehended  in 
many  ways.  The  doctrine  of  the  present  day  is  an  outcome 
from  the  history,  as  it  must  be.  In  the  long  development 
there  has  been  much  that  is  Christian  and  much  that  is  not, 
as  well  as  much  that  is  reasonable  and  much  that  is  not. 
Here  again  the  Christian  selective  sense  must  do  its  work, 
just  as  the  rational  selective  sense  performs  its  function.  We 
are  required  to  judge  what  is  Christian  and  what  is  not,  to 
observe  what  has  been  disproved,  outgrown  or  transformed 
by  the  Christian  movement  of  life,  and  to  gather  in  what  be¬ 
longs  to  the  true  Christian  doctrine.  We  must  not,  and  we 
need  not,  eut  off  the  doctrine  of  the  present  day  from  that  of 
the  past.  What  we  trace  over  the  threshold  of  the  present 
age  is  a  genuine  progress  of  unfolding  truth.  Christian 
thought  in  the  latest  time  comes  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil. 
In  the  history  we  meet  views  of  God  that  have  been  the  heart 
and  life  of  all  doctrine,  the  centre  of  the  divergences,  and  the 
glory  of  all  Christian  time.  If  we  can  make  these  our  own, 
and  cast  them  into  the  forms  that  are  truest  and  most  useful 


8 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


now,  we  shall  be  no  less  loyal  to  the  past  than  to  the  future 
in  so  doing. 

By  this  long  road  we  come  with  the  doctrine  to  our  own 
time,  and  endeavour  to  express  the  Christian  thought  of  God 
in  the  light  of  the  present  day.  Nearly  or  remotely,  all 
knowledge  has  its  effect  upon  the  idea  that  we  can  hold  of 
God.  At  every  turn  we  find  that  the  knowledge  that  is  char¬ 
acteristic  of  the  present  age  is  influencing  the  conception  of 
him.  If  we  complain  of  this  we  are  wrong:  our  faith  must 
fairly  meet  the  knowledge  of  the  age,  and  our  present  doctrine 
of  God  must  take  account  of  all  truth  now  known  that  can 
bear  upon  it.  We  shall  find  that  some  ancient  conceptions  of 
God  are  tenable,  or  possible,  no  longer,  and  that  some  are 
necessary  now  that  once  were  not  within  the  reach  of  thought 
— so  great  are  the  changes  that  come  with  change  in  the  extent 
of  knowledge.  Yet  God  is  always  the  same,  and  the  view  of 
his  character  and  relations  with  men  which  Jesus  imparts  is 
true  forever.  This  is  the  heart  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  and 
this  truth  must  take  present  form  from  present  conditions, 
that  the  old  and  the  new  may  work  as  one. 

So  our  task  is  to  construct  the  doctrine  of  God  that  corre¬ 
sponds  to  the  testimony  and  spirit  of  Christ,  and  to  the  other 
truth  that  is  known  at  present.  It  is  an  obvious  criticism 
upon  this  proposal  that  it  leaves  much  to  the  judgment  of 
him  who  undertakes  to  construct  the  doctrine.  This  is  true, 
and  one  could  easily  wish  for  a  less  exacting  method.  But 
this  seems  to  be  God’s  way  with  the  free  spirits  whom  he  has 
gifted  with  the  powers  of  life — he  bids  each  and  all  of  them 
turn  their  faces  toward  him,  and  report  to  one  another  what 
they  see.  Each  sees  for  himself.  Yet  there  need  be  no  fear 
that  any  one  man  will  form  a  doctrine.  No  one  can  do  that — 
it  is  the  work  of  many  together.  Nothing  is  a  doctrine  that 
has  not  its  roots  both  in  the  gift  of  our  Lord  and  in  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  his  people.  Yet  one  man  may  do  his  best  to  pre¬ 
sent  the  doctrine  which  the  revelation  of  God  and  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  men  are  commending  to  the  present  time.  With 
diffidence  and  yet  with  confidence  this  task  must  now  be 


THE  THEME  AND  THE  TREAT^IENT 


9 


undertaken.  After  the  doctrine  has  been  presented,  how¬ 
ever,  there  will  remain  still  another  task.  The  question  will 
arise  whether  the  doctrine  is  tenable;  whether  facts  can  be 
brought  forth  that  have  the  right  to  shake  our  faith  in  it; 
whether,  after  all  is  said,  the  world  would  be  justified  in 
rejecting  it.  This  question  of  course  must  be  considered. 
We  must  remember  by  what  kind  of  evidence  a  doctrine  of 
God  can  be  supported,  and  judge  whether  belief  in  the  God 
and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  is  justified  or  condemned  by  the 
sum  of  what  we  know. 

When  we  come  to  the  evidence,  however,  it  will  be  best  of 
all  if  we  find  confirmation  of  the  belief  in  which  this  book  is 
written,  namely,  that  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God,  when 
rightly  presented,  is  gloriously  self-commending.  If  it  is  not, 
indeed,  it  cannot  be  commended.  Proof  may  be  offered  in 
favour  of  it,  but  the  best  ultimate  proof  is  found  in  what  it  is. 
Objections  may  be  brought  against  it,  but  it  is  by  the  virtue 
of  the  doctrine  itself  that  they  are  to  be  overcome.  Certain  it 
is  that  the  Christian  doctrine  offers  the  noblest  and  most 
satisfactory  thought  that  was  ever  offered  to  the  mind  and 
heart  of  man.  It  commends  itself  at  once  to  sound  reason, 
and  to  that  high  faculty  of  faith  by  which  it  is  given  to  man 
to  lay  hold  upon  that  which  is  above  him.  Although  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  God  is  far  from  being  so  obvious  that  it 
cannot  be  doubted,  though  doubt  is  possible  and  even  easy, 
and  is  suggested  by  familiar  facts,  yet  the  doctrine  is  so  noble 
in  itself,  and  so  normal  to  all  sound  thought,  and  so  congru¬ 
ous  with  a  rational  interpretation  of  existence,  that  mind  and 
heart  are  justified  in  accepting  it  as  true.  The  endeavour 
of  this  book  is  to  present  the  God  and  Father  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  in  the  character  which  Jesus  gives  to  him,  and 
help  the  reader  to  see  and  feel  that  he  must  be  the  living 
God. 

It  will  not  be  surprising  that  in  this  endeavour  the  method 
is  not  in  any  great  degree  controversial.  The  limits  of  space 
do  not  allow  comparison  among  the  innumerable  statements 
that  havQ  beeu  made^  or  elaborate  defence  of  the  judgment3 


10 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


that  are  accepted.  But  apart  from  this,  the  best  presentation 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  can  scarcely  be  controversial.  It  is 
not  to  the  spirit  of  controversy  that  the  vision  of  God  is  as¬ 
sured,  or  even  to  the  method  of  argument.  When  we  see  how 
Jesus  taught  men  to  become  acquainted  with  God,  we  blush 
at  the  frequent  assumption  that  we  can  know  him  through 
discussion,  sometimes  keen  and  dialectical,  sometimes  angry. 
We  shall  encounter  views  of  God  that  we  cannot  accept:  we 
may  leave  them,  but  we  need  not  stay  to  slay  them.  The 
views  of  him  that  we  accept  should  be  borne  in  upon  our 
souls  by  the  tide  of  a  mighty  peace,  and  received  in  a  calm¬ 
ness  that  has  small  place  for  controversy.  The  doctrine  of 
God  will  fight  its  own  battles,  and  the  best  that  we  can  do  for 
it  is  to  set  it  forth. 

Yet  with  all  our  confidence  we  cannot  hope  to  frame  a 
doctrine  of  God  that  will  be  free  from  difficulty,  or  one  that 
will  relieve  any  day’s  life  of  its  common  perplexities.  The 
subject  is  too  great  for  that.  In  the  conception  of  God  is 
involved  the  entire  mystery  of  existence;  and  that  mystery  is 
not  only  very  broad  and  deep  but  very  near,  manifesting  itself 
not  only  in  the  problems  of  infinity  but  in  the  commonest 
affairs  of  life.  No  doctrine  will  immediately  solve  the  daily 
problems  that  beset  all  serious  minds.  The  contradictions 
of  life  are  to  be  harmonized  in  God  as  their  final  unity,  but 
though  we  are  ever  so  sure  of  this,  we  know  that  the  perfect 
harmony  is  not  yet  manifest.  We  must  wait,  if  for  no  other 
reason,  because  we  are  not  yet  capable  of  that  comprehensive 
understanding  which  discernment  will  require.  We  are  still 
God’s  little  children.  But  there  is  comfort  in  the  fact  that 
the  Christian  belief  is  not  merely  an  acceptance  of  conclusions. 
Christianity  is  not  ashamed  to  say  that  its  belief  is  a  grasping 
of  realities.  The  realities  are  unseen,  and  we  wait  for  them. 
Nevertheless,  even  now  we  have  more  than  glimpses  of  that 
supreme  reality  in  which  the  final  solution  will  be  found.  The 
vision  of  God  is  already  clear  enough  to  give  us  peace,  to 
sustain  us  in  good  endeavour,  and  to  be  “the  master  light  of 
all  our  seeing.” 


THE  SOURCES 


11 


2.  THE  SOURCES 

The  sources  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  lie  partly 
farther  back  than  Christ.  We  find  them  not  only  in  the 
Hebrew  faith  that  cradled  the  Christian  faith,  but  in  the 
general  faith  of  mankind,  and  far  among  the  primitive 
thoughts  of  men.  The  chief  source  we  find  in  him  whose 
mission  it  was  to  show  us  plainly  of  the  Father;  for  Jesus  has 
imparted  to  the  world  a  better  knowledge  of  God  than  any 
other.  His  revelation  in  himself  and  his  spiritual  work  forms 
the  main  substance  of  the  Christian  doctrine.  We  study  his 
contribution  farther  in  the  early  Christian  experience  which 
showed  more  fully  what  it  was  and  how  great  was  its  value; 
and  we  trace  the  development  of  the  doctrine  that  sprang 
from  him,  as  it  came  from  him  to  us.  From  these  sources 
we  gather  our  material  for  judging  what,  in  the  light  of 
Jesus  the  Revealer,  God  is. 


(1)  The  Ancient  Ethical  Conception 

This  book  does  not  trace  the  idea  of  God  from  its  begin¬ 
nings.  It  must  suffice  to  say  that  the  best  living  conception 
of  God  is  the  growth  of  ages,  and  that  the  experiences  from 
which  it  took  its  rise  are  among  the  oldest  possessions  of 
mankind.  As  for  its  origin,  the  idea  of  God  would  seem 
indebted  to  primitive  observation  of  the  world,  and  to  the 
primitive  experiences  of  man;  to  the  recognition  of  external 
power,  and  to  man’s  reading  of  his  own  life.  Back  of  our 
searching,  however,  the  idea  seems  grounded  in  human  nature 
itself;  for  religion  has  never  been  satisfactorily  accounted 
for  by  reference  to  external  suggestions,  but  appears  to  have 
its  foundation  in  the  nature  of  the  being  in  whom  it  exists. 

/  The  simplest  and  truest  explanation  of  belief  in  God  is,  that 
^it  is  always  the  nature  of  life  to  take  hold  upon  the  realities 
that  it  needs  for  service  to  its  welfare,  and  that  for  the  human 
spirit  God  is  one  of  those  realities.  Certain  it  is  that  from  its 


12 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


early  days  the  human  race  has  been  believing,  however  crudely, 
in  a  divine  power,  authority  and  helpfulness,  and  has  acted 
upon  the  belief. 

The  primitive  religious  conception  entered  in  due  time 
into  fellowship  with  the  primitive  ethical  conception.  At 
what  stage  the  ethical  element  came  into  fruitful  union  with 
the  religious  feeling  we  shall  never  know,  for  it  was  not  an 
event  but  a  process,  and  it  belonged  to  a  far-off  time,  from 
which  no  records  have  come  down.  But  through  experience 
of  life  it  gradually  came  to  pass  that  the  divine  relation  was 
felt  to  involve  a  moral  claim,  to  be  fulfilled  not  only  in  formal¬ 
ities  of  religion  but  in  the  conduct  of  life,  acceptable  to  the 
powers  above  in  proportion  as  it  was  right.  The  ethical 
conception  of  God  is  the  thought  of  him  as  making  such  a 
claim  on  men  because  of  a  moral  character  that  he  himself 
possesses. 

Such  an  ethical  conception,  it  is  needless  to  say,  has  not 
belonged  to  any  one  religion  alone,  and  has  existed  in  all 
possible  degrees  of  strength  and  clearness.  Within  the  field 
of  our  knowledge  no  religion  has  ever  been  wholly  destitute 
of  the  ethical  quality.  Even  the  lowest  religions  have  con¬ 
tained  some  moral  counsels  and  appeals,  justified  by  moral 
quality  attributed  to  the  objects  of  worship.  The  range  of 
morals  may  have  been  narrow  and  low,  but  recognition  of  a 
moral  claim  from  above  has  nowhere  been  wholly  wanting. 
It  is  in  this  that  the  uplifting  power  of  religion  has  had  its 
surest  sanction.  Worship  has  in  itself  a  certain  degree  of 
power  to  elevate  heart  and  life  for  the  worshipper,  but  its 
good  influence  may  be  more  than  matched  by  unworthiness 
in  its  object.  When  the  object  of  worship  is  of  such  char¬ 
acter  as  to  require  that  a  man  shall  do  in  his  life  the  thing  that 
he  holds  to  be  right,  worship  becomes  truly  elevating;  and 
when  the  character  is  such  as  to  inspire  an  ever-ascending 
ideal  of  what  is  right,  and  insist  with  ever-growing  urgency 
upon  loyalty  to  this  rising  standard,  then  religion  becomes 
best  and  most  beneficent.  The  gradual  establishment  of 
belief  in  a  moral  God  forms  a  great  element  in  history,  which 


THE  SOURCES 


13 


can  now  be  mentioned  only  in  passing.  To  the  presence  and 
value  of  the  moral  element  in  the  religions  of  the  world  we 
can  only  pay  thankful  tribute.  Often  it  has  high  quality,  and 
sometimes  in  a  dark  atmosphere  there  flashes  out  a  high 
moral  claim.  Doubtless  the  ethical  life  of  the  world  has 
suffered  much  from  religion,  but  it  owes  to  religion  immeasu¬ 
rably  more  than  it  has  suffered  from  it.  Faulty  enough 
indeed  the  influence  has  been,  but  the  ethical  life  of  the  world 
has  on  the  whole  been  greatly  reinforced  and  purified  by  its 
religions. 

The  ethical  conception  of  God  rose  highest  in  the  religion 
of  the  Hebrew  people,  and  is  set  forth  in  the  noblest  way  in 
the  noblest  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  prophets  were 
its  greatest  heralds,  but  in  varying  degrees  the  Law,  the 
Prophets  and  the  Psalms  all  proclaim  it.  The  tracing  of  the 
growth  of  this  high  quality  in  Hebrew  doctrine  and  life, 
however,  lies  outside  our  field.  The  Hebrew  Scriptures  were 
complete  when  they  were  placed  by  parents  or  teachers  in 
the  hands  of  Jesus,  and  all  their  ethical  wealth  was  ready  to 
be  taken  up  into  a  doctrine  that  would  glorify  its  glories  and 
remedy  its  defects.  For  the  present  purpose  there  is  need  of 
nothing  more  than  a  brief  reminder  of  that  ethical  conception 
of  God  to  which  the  highest  souls  of  Israel  had  attained. 

Christians  have  always  said  that  the  high  Hebrew  concep¬ 
tion  of  God  was  due  to  revelation.  Men  were  not  merely 
discovering  God,  but  God  was  making  himself  known  to  men. 
This  is  so  largely  and  richly  true  that  in  order  to  do  it  justice 
we  must  allow  to  the  great  word  revelation  its  broadest  and 
most  significant  use.  God’s  methods  in  making  himself 
known  are  sure  to  be  manv:  it  cannot  be  that  he  reveals  him- 
self  only  in  some  single  mode.  He  has  revealed  himself 
through  individual  experience,  as  when  the  writer  of  the  fifty- 
first  Psalm  learned  from  his  own  sense  of  guilt  how  little  God 
cared  for  sacrifice,  or  Hosea  learned  God’s  love  through  his 
own  experience  of  love  in  spite  of  sin.  He  has  revealed  himself 
through  larger  experiences,  as  when  through  Israel’s  trouble 


14 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  seers  of  the  Exile  became  acquainted  with  a  greater  and 
nearer  God  than  they  had  known  before.  He  has  revealed 
himself  immediately  in  the  communion  that  holy  souls  have 
had  with  him,  and  has  enabled  such  souls  to  tell  what  they 
have  learned.  All  this  he  has  done,  in  accordance  with  his 
universal  method.  That  which  has  gone  on  elsewhere  went 
on  also  among  the  Hebrews,  and  God  was  in  it :  life  developed 
ethics,  as  it  must,  and  suggested  an  ethical  doctrine  of  God. 
There  is  every  reason  why  Christian  students  should  recognize 
the  natural  growth  of  ethics,  and  perceive  God  revealing  his 
own  character  by  that  means.  Ethics  and  ethical  views  of 
God  grew  up  among  the  Hebrews  upon  the  true  human 
method,  which  is  the  divine  method.  Some  truths  about 
God  they  learned  for  themselves,  through  his  providential 
teaching,  and  some  they  received  by  contribution  from  other 
peoples  with  whom  they  had  to  do.  Much  they  learned  also 
through  his  more  direct  manifestation  of  himself  to  the  men 
of  God  who  of  old  were  moved  by  his  Holy  Spirit.  Under 
the  one  name  of  revelation  we  must  include  all  of  these  proc¬ 
esses  in  which  God  was  becoming  known,  for  all  were  works 
of  God,  who  was  voluntarily  offering  himself  to  human  knowl¬ 
edge  and  fellowship,  in  one  as  truly  as  in  another.  Among 
the  various  methods  there  is  no  shadow  of  inconsistency.  If 
God  lives  indeed,  we  may  be  sure  that  human  life,  ordained 
by  him,  will  reveal  him  in  some  measure,  and  equally  sure 
that  as  a  living  Spirit  he  will  show  himself  to  spirits  that  have 
vision,  as  he  did  to  the  Hebrew  prophets.  Back  of  the 
ethical  conception  of  God  which  is  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament  lie  both  these  divine  modes  of  revelation,  worthy 
of  God  and  man. 

In  the  Old  Testament  God  is  always  intensely  personal,  and 
by  no  means  least  in  the  parts  in  which  his  moral  quality  is 
most  strongly  emphasized.  He  always  speaks  as  I,  is  spoken 
of  as  He,  and  is  addressed  as  Thou,  and  he  always  appears 
as  One  who  stands  in  real  and  vital  relations  with  men.  To 
the  men  whose  life  the  Old  Testament  records,  God  was  just 
as  living  and  personal  as  themselves,  and  just  as  capable  of 


THE  SOURCES 


15 


communion  with  them  as  they  were  with  one  another.  The 
fact  that  he  was  invisible  only  threw  the  relation  more  into 
the  realm  of  the  spirit;  it  did  not  in  the  least  diminish  the 
reality  of  it  in  common  life.  The  gradual  retirement  of  early 
anthropomorphism  did  not  take  away  the  personal  quality. 
The  prophets  had  as  vivid  a  sense  as  any  men  ever  had  of  the 
living  God. 

Concerning  the  character  of  God  the  Old  Testament  is 
not  of  one  voice  throughout,  but  its  highest  thought  attributes 
goodness  to  him  in  high  and  glorious  degree.  To  him  holi¬ 
ness  belongs.  Holiness,  our  comprehensive  term  for  all  that 
is  most  impressive  and  glorious  in  the  perfect  Goodness, 
seems  at  first  to  have  denoted  that  which  belongs  to  God,  or 
is  divine,  in  distinction  from  what  is  human;  but  before  the 
Old  Testament  had  borne  its  whole  message  holiness  had 
come  to  denote  what  is  morally  pure  and  exacting,  in  contrast 
to  evil  of  every  kind.  There  is  no  defining  of  holiness,  but 
the  word  assigns  to  God  all  that  makes  his  presence  glorious 
in  itself  and  searching  to  men.  For  it  is  important  to  note 
that  God’s  great  goodness  appears  not  as  an  abstraction,  but 
always  in  concrete  and  practical  relations.  It  is  toward  men 
that  his  face  is  turned.  He  is  the  righteous  God;  and 
righteousness  is  a  quality  that  belongs  to  personal  rela¬ 
tions.  His  character  is  such  that  he  must  do  right  toward 
men  and  demand  right  from  them.  His  righteousness  is 
both  terrible  and  gracious,  for  it  sets  him  against  all  wrong 
and  evil,  and  makes  him  a  Being  upon  whom  the  strongest 
and  simplest  confidence  may  take  hold.  It  appears  both  in 
strictness  and  in  faithfulness,  in  severity  and  in  grace;  for  in 
the  Old  Testament  God’s  righteousness  includes  both  of 
these.  In  a  word  God  is  worthy  to  be  adored,  trusted  and 
obeyed.  Above  all,  he  is  such  a  Being,  and  so  related  to  men, 
that  it  is  the  supreme  duty  of  men  to  do  his  will.  This  is  the 
underlying  principle  in  the  entire  fact  and  method  of  divine 
Law  for  men.  The  reason  and  method  of  the  divine  will 
are  not  brought  out  in  their  glory  as  they  are  by  Jesus,  and 
the  blessedness  of  the  divine  way  of  life  is  not  made  so  plain; 


16 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


but  the  rightful  sovereignty  of  the  will  of  God  is  proclaimed 
in  the  Old  Testament  as  the  essential  fact  in  life.  The 
absolute  moral  supremacy  of  God  is  a  lesson  that  stood  wait¬ 
ing  to  be  taken  up  and  established  forever  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus. 

Israel  stands,  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  group  of  men 
to  whom  God  has  specially  bound  himself.  At  first  Israel 
has  to  do  with  a  national  deity,  but  gradually  the  God  of 
Israel  passes  over  into  the  God  of  all ;  yet  Israel  never  ceases 
to  be  the  people  that  stands  in  special  relation  to  him.  The 
covenant  of  the  national  God  becomes  a  covenant  of  the 
universal  God;  though  his  relation  to  other  men  comes  also 
into  sight. 

To  Israel  he  stands  related  through  his  Law,  for  he 
has  been  pleased  to  lay  upon  this  people  great  and  clear 
requirements.  Men  are  here  under  special  obligation  to  God : 
they  owe  him  duty,  and  are  bound  by  his  commands,  for  his 
Law  brings  divine  instruction,  and  carries  divine  authority. 
In  this  way  what  lies  deep  in  his  heart  and  character  is  set 
forth  as  standard  and  guide  for  them.  Sin  against  his  will 
thus  revealed  is  sin  against  himself,  which  he  may  punish  or 
forgive.  But  the  prophets  know  that  it  is  not  only  within  the 
sphere  of  explicit  law  that  his  requirement  moves.  They 
rise  to  condemn  unrighteousness  and  unworthy  life  of  every 
kind,  not  merely  on  the  ground  that  God  has  forbidden  it, 
but  on  the  ground  that  it  is  wrong  and  men  know  it  to  be 
wrong.  They  appeal  to  conscience  and  common  knowledge, 
and  insist  upon  God’s  demand  that  men  live  up  to  what  they 
know,  and  do  that  which  they  understand  to  be  right  and 
worthy.  Prophets  simplify  a  claim  of  God  which  in  law  has 
been  felt  to  be  complicated,  and  hold  forth  his  demand  for 
whatsoever  is  pure  in  personal  life  and  right  between  man  and 
man,  as  well  as  for  all  that  is  reverent  and  obedient  toward 
himself.  The  best  that  men  know  how  to  do  is  represented 
as  the  way  by  which  they  are  to  advance  toward  fulfilment  of 
God’s  own  standard. 

In  the  Old  Testament  God  is  often  represented  as  extremely 


THE  SOURCES 


17 


severe  toward  the  sinful.  We  find  language  which,  taken  by 
itself,  would  make  him  appear  to  delight  in  punishing,  and  to 
be  satisfied  in  the  doom  of  those  who  disobey  him.  In  a 
similar  spirit  the  institutions  of  the  Old  Testament  represent 
him  as  a  God  who  withdraws  himself  from  the  sinful,  sepa¬ 
rated,  dwelling  apart  in  a  holy  place,  and  approachable  only 
through  priestly  meditation.  One  would  think  that  to  ordi¬ 
nary  men  he  must  have  been  more  terrible  than  attractive. 
But  this  is  the  waning  element.  As  revelation  advances  and 
grows  clearer  he  appears  more  and  more  as  a  God  who 
desires  not  the  death  of  the  wicked,  and  who  welcomes  the 
penitent  to  his  fellowship.  He  does  not  delight  in  punish¬ 
ment.  He  is  interested  in  men  for  their  good,  and  is  satis¬ 
fied  only  when  they  are  right.  This  is  the  waxing  view  of 
God,  the  more  characteristic  view,  which  becomes  more  and 
more  impressive  as  the  true  light  draws  on. 

To  Israel,  and,  in  the  end,  to  all  men,  God  is  thus  related 
through  love.  With  Israel  he  has  his  covenant,  in  which  his 
gracious  character  is  especially  manifest.  Gracious  he  is, 
and  merciful.  He  is  patient,  long-suffering  and  full  of  com¬ 
passion.  He  delights  to  pardon.  He  desires  not  the  death 
of  the  wicked,  but  that  he  turn  from  his  evil  way  and  live. 
So  far  as  he  is  offended  by  his  people’s  sins,  he  is  ready  at  any 
moment  for  his  anger  to  be  turned  away.  In  the  established 
system  of  sacrifices  he  is  believed  to  have  provided  means  for 
the  people’s  expression  of  their  penitence  for  sin,  as  well  as 
of  their  gratitude  and  consecration;  but  his  forgiving  grace 
is  his  own,  and  is  not  purchased  by  their  offerings.  He 
desires  not  sacrifice,  but  a  broken  spirit.  The  later  prophets 
and  psalmists  perceive  that  not  toward  Israel  alone  is  God 
thus  gracious,  but  that  the  same  heart  of  love  flows  out  toward 
all  the  world.  God  is  so  truly  good  that  he  can  be  trusted 
never  to  forget,  or  to  abandon  his  purpose,  or  to  be  indifferent 
to  sin,  or  to  deal  unworthily  with  men.  Thus  accompanying 
that  holiness  which  the  Old  Testament  sets  forth  is  that  su¬ 
preme  excellence  which  the  New  Testament  discovers  more 
richly,  under  the  name  of  love. 


18 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


To  Israel,  and  to  all  men,  God  stands  related,  again, 
through  the  experiences  of  life.  In  law,  in  prophecy  and  in 
history,  the  Old  Testament  illustrates  the  activity  of  God  in 
human  affairs  and  his  moral  interest  in  the  doings  of  men. 
His  requirement  is  not  partial  or  special  but  searches  through 
the  whole  of  life.  His  watchful  interest  constitutes  what 
Christian  doctrine  has  called  a  Providence,  in  which  his  pur¬ 
pose  is  that  men  shall  be  taught  the  lessons  of  his  character 
and  will.  The  history  of  Israel  is  interpreted  as  one  long 
course  of  probation  and  education,  in  which  God  is  seeking 
to  make  his  character  known  and  lead  men  to  give  due  rever¬ 
ence  and  obedience  to  him.  Prophets  and  prophetic  his¬ 
torians  are  never  weary  of  reiterating  that  good  comes  to 
Israel  when  Israel  is  faithful  to  God  and  his  righteousness, 
and  calamity  is  the  sure  result  of  infidelity  to  him.  The 
prophets,  indeed,  expound  the  ethical  conception  of  God 
far  more  profoundly,  variously  and  practically  than  does 
the  Law.  But  the  relation  of  God  to  the  continuous  life  of 
men  is  not  always  plain  or  easy  to  be  understood;  and  the 
Old  Testament  records  the  perplexity  which  is  inevitable  in  a 
world  so  compounded  of  good  and  evil  as  this  world  is. 
How  the  wrongs  and  inequalities  of  life  and  the  manifold 
sorrows  of  the  world  are  to  be  understood  in  view  of  the 
righteousness  and  grace  of  God  is  a  mystery,  and  sometimes 
a  heart-breaking  mystery,  to  prophets  and  poets.  But  the 
goodness  is  never  given  up,  even  if  it  is  momentarily  ob¬ 
scured.  The  devout  spirit  holds  it  fast,  and  labours  to  solve 
the  problem  in  the  light  of  it.  The  temper  in  which  even  the 
most  agonized  inquiry  is  made  is  well  represented  by  the 
prayer,  “Righteous  art  thou,  O  Jehovah,  when  I  contend 
with  thee,  yet  would  I  plead  the  cause  with  thee:  wherefore 
doth  the  way  of  the  wicked  prosper?’^  (Jer.  xii.  1.)  Ex¬ 
ceptions  to  this  reverent  confidence  are  but  slight,  and  out 
of  the  inquiry  comes  the  conviction  that  God  has  a  gracious 
purpose  in  the  troubles  that  have  been  so  perplexing. 

The  God  thus  ethically  conceived  is  the  God  of  nature, 
the  creator  of  the  world,  the  Lord  of  providence.  Late  in  the 


THE  SOURCES 


19 


course  of  thought  concerning  him  was  brought  forth  that 
great  psalm  of  creation  which  stands  at  the  front  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  (Gen.  i.).  He  is  the  creator  of  all  things 
and  the  giver  of  human  life.  The  movements  of  nature  in 
the  world  are  results  of  his  immediate  activity.  His  high 
character  makes  him  terrible  as  well  as  glorious  to  men,  for 
toward  wickedness  he  stands  as  judge  and  punisher.  Yet 
“the  fear  of  the  Lord”  is  no  mere  dread;  it  is  a  solemn  and 
reverent  regard  to  his  righteousness. 

The  ancient  ethical  conception  of  God  runs  through  all 
antiquity,  but  nowhere  else  does  it  stand  out  in  forms  so  clear 
and  practical  as  in  the  highest  utterances  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  Even  here,  however,  it  is  not  complete,  or  satisfac¬ 
torily  carried  to  its  applications.  Inferior  conceptions  of 
God  exist  beside  it,  brought  over  from  early  religion  and  not 
yet  banished  by  the  higher  truth.  It  must  never  be  forgotten 
that  along  with  the  ancient  ethical  conception,  the  Old 
Testament  preserves  many  more  primitive  conceptions  that 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  it.  He  is  sometimes  shown  as  capri¬ 
cious,  revengeful,  unreasonable,  cruel;  and  we  have  to  own 
that  now  and  then  Moses  appears  at  better  advantage  than  he. 
Even  at  the  best  he  is  still  far  too  much  conceived  of  as  a  God 
of  partialism,  bound  to  a  nation.  Christianity  has  suffered 
beyond  expression  from  the  conscientious  endeavour  to  attrib¬ 
ute  to  the  God  of  the  New  Testament  all  the  passions  and 
doings  of  the  God  of  the  Old.  Moreover,  we  find  the  faults 
that  are  inseparable  from  a  legal  system  in  religion,  such  as 
was  in  full  force  late  in  the  Old  Testament  period.  Under 
such  a  system  God  appears  as  One  who  is  satisfied  when  men 
obey  specific  commands,  and  expects  them  to  deserve  his 
favour  by  such  obedience — an  error  that  Jesus  had  to  meet 
and  set  aside.  But  in  spite  of  such  defective  views  of  God, 
which  could  only  retard  the  reception  of  nobler  thought,  the 
ethical  conception  is  present  in  power  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  constitutes  the  crown  and  glory  of  the  Hebrew  religion. 
Here  shines  out  the  thought  of  God  as  moral  character, 
rightly  claiming  to  dominate  the  life  of  man.  That  the  mani- 


20 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


festations  of  moral  sway  that  are  attributed  to  him  are  often 
below  the  best  is  but  a  natural  fact  of  history,  of  slight  im¬ 
portance  in  comparison  with  the  sublime  belief  in  an  ethical 
God  that  runs  increasingly  through  the  Old  Testament  as 
a  living  power. 


(2)  The  Testimony  of  Jesus 

The  Christian  doctrine  takes  its  name  from  Jesus,  the  Son 
of  God,  known  as  the  Christ,  and  from  him  it  derives  its 
character. 

Jesus  quietly  appeared  among  the  Jewish  people  and 
uttered  his  word  concerning  God  and  man.  It  is  a  striking 
fact  that  he  did  not  come  proposing  a  new  doctrine  of  God, 
or  announce  the  need  of  a  revolution  in  the  knowledge  of  him 
that  had  been  received  from  the  fathers.  As  a  Jew  he  was 
born  to  a  conception  of  God,  and  he  never  rejected  his  in¬ 
heritance.  He  lived  the  life  of  a  devout  Hebrew,  looking  to 
God  in  the  spirit  of  the  religion  of  the  prophets.  We  know 
how  he  condemned  the  abuses  of  the  old  religion,  which  in 
his  day  was  a  religion  partly  of  the  prophets  and  partly  of 
the  law;  and  yet  he  never  stood  as  a  rejecter  of  the  doctrine 
of  God  which  the  ancient  religion  had  bequeathed.  He 
began  where  he  found  himself,  and  used  what  he  had  received. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  a  fact  that  he  brought  in  a  new  religion,  and 
did  for  the  doctrine  of  God  more  than  any  other  has  ever 
done  or  can  do.  He  enlarged,  enriched,  spiritualized  the  con¬ 
ception  of  God,  and  freed  it  from  perversions  that  were 
injurious  to  religion:  and  at  the  same  time  he  brought  it  into 
actual  life  in  its  new  simplicity  and  glory,  and  helped  men  to 
live  by  it,  as  no  one  else  has  ever  done.  He  has  given  a 
richer  doctrine  of  God,  and  inspired  and  illustrated  a  better 
practice  of  God,  than  the  world  has  known  elsewhere. 

This  certainly  is  a  most  remarkable  combination — a  vast 
improvement  in  the  highest  of  human  conceptions,  intro¬ 
duced  not  in  theory  merely  but  in  actual  life,  and  yet  intro¬ 
duced  without  profession  of  revolutionary  intent,  and  without 


THE  SOURCES 


21 


strong  emphasis  upon  any  additions  to  thought  already  held. 
One  thing  is  clear — the  conception  of  God  that  came  to 
Jesus  out  of  the  past  was  so  sound  and  true  that  he  could 
accept  it  and  use  it  as  the  basis  of  his  own  doctrine.  He  was 
able  to  take  up  the  best  doctrine  that  he  found  in  the  holy 
writings  and  worthiest  life  of  his  people,  and  carry  it  to  a 
still  higher  use.  Such  an  acceptance  bore  witness  to  it. 
The  contribution  of  the  past  is  approved  by  being  taken  up 
into  the  nobler  doctrine  of  the  future. 

Of  course  this  does  not  mean  that  Jesus  approved  and 
appropriated  all  that  is  said  of  God  in  those  Scriptures  that 
lay  in  his  hands.  He  did  not  deliver  to  us  all  that  the  Old 
Testament  says  of  God  as  Christian  testimony.  To  suppose 
that  he  did  has  been  one  of  the  most  hurtful  errors  in  Chris¬ 
tian  teaching.  When  he  condemned  the  spirit  ascribed  to 
Elijah  in  calling  fire  from  heaven  to  destroy  his  enemies,  he 
condemned  the  spirit  ascribed  to  God  in  supposing  that  he 
would  send  fire  from  heaven  for  such  a  purpose  at  Elijah’s  call 
(Lk.  ix.  51-56) .  When  he  said,  “  Love  your  enemies,  that  ye 
may  be  sons  of  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven”  (Mt.  v.  45-46), 
he  made  many  of  the  old  conceptions  of  God  impossible.  For 
in  the  Old  Testament  there  are  recorded  many  conceptions 
of  God,  ranging  from  low  to  high.  There  is  much  there  that 
falls  far  below  Jesus’  level,  and  loyalty  to  him  requires  that 
we  distinguish  it  from  that  which  corresponds  to  his  high 
spirit.  Nevertheless,  it  is  true  that  the  increasing  revelation 
of  the  Old  Testament  leads  directly  on  to  Jesus  and  is  crowned 
by  his  utterance.  He,  the  truest  of  revealers,  accepted  and 
appropriated  the  noblest  conception  of  God  that  the  old  faith 
had  known,  and  initiated  the  Christian  doctrine  at  the  sum¬ 
mit  of  the  old  belief.  We  do  not  find  him  quoting  inferior 
statements  of  the  old  Scriptures  concerning  God.  Whatever 
fell  below  the  height  at  which  he  began  formed  no  part  of  his 
doctrine;  but  whatever  from  the  ancient  source  was  in  har¬ 
mony  with  the  spirit  of  his  mission  he  made  his  own  and 
transmitted  as  his  own  to  us. 

In  this  true  sense  Christianity  was  the  heir  of  Hebraism  in 


22 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


its  doctrine  of  God.  But  it  must  be  added  that  the  ancient 
ethical  conception  of  God  that  thus  came  into  Christianity 
was  not  altogether  a  specialty  of  Hebraism.  Confidence  in  a 
God  who  is  felt  to  be  worthy  of  confidence  is  of  the  very  sub¬ 
stance  of  religious  life,  and  in  the  history  of  religion  a  God 
actually  worthy  of  confidence  has  many  a  time  been  dis¬ 
cerned  and  trusted.  God  has  not  left  himself  without  wit¬ 
ness,  and  has  in  some  measure  become  known  for  what  he 
really  is.  Worthy  conceptions  of  his  character  have  not  been 
confined  to  Israel.  So  when  Jesus  took  his  stand  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  prophets,  he  gave  his  sanction  not  only  to  the 
Hebrew  revelation  at  its  best,  but  to  all  doctrine  of  a  worthy 
God  that  human  faith  has  ever  attained.  He  set  the  crown 
of  his  approval  upon  the  process  that  has  formed  an  ethical 
doctrine  of  God,  wherever  it  has  gone  on.  In  bearing  witness 
to  the  eternal  goodness  he  bore  witness  to  the  value  of  every 
recognition  of  the  eternal  goodness  that  has  ever  been  made. 
He  showed  that  all  high  moral  conceptions  of  God  have  been 
right — imperfect  indeed,  yet  real  visions  of  the  truth.  It  was 
the  Hebrew  race  that  contributed  the  conceptions  that  stood 
ready  to  be  adopted  into  the  Christian  faith,  but  in  accepting 
them  Jesus  put  himself  in  connection  not  with  Hebraism  only, 
but  with  the  entire  history  of  religion,  and  set  the  seal  of 
honour  upon  that  moral  element  which  has  been  the  best 
element  in  all  the  religions  of  the  world. 

Coming  to  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  we  discover  that  the 
doctrine  of  God  that  he  gives  us  is  a  religious  doctrine:  that 
is  to  say,  it  presents  God  in  relations  with  men,  and  in  those 
relations  which  are  learned  and  experienced  in  the  life  of  re¬ 
ligion.  His  teaching  gives  us  this,  and  nothing  more — a 
practical  doctrine  of  God  as  men  have  to  do  with  him.  Jesus 
knew  God  in  human  life,  and  proclaimed  him  as  a  living 
reality  there,  but  into  other  fields  of  thought  concerning 
God  he  did  not  enter. 

In  modern  times  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  the  doctrine 
of  God  must  necessarily  be  largely  metaphysical.  Philo- 


THE  SOURCES 


23 


sophical  speculation  has  had  a  large  place  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  theology,  with  the  result  that  the  current  doctrine 
of  God  contains  a  large  element  that  originated  in  that 
quarter.  At  present  also  all  thought  concerning  the  doctrine 
of  God  is  influenced  silently  or  otherwise  by  suggestions  from 
physical  science,  and  influence  that  begins  there  easily  passes 
over  into  the  field  of  philosophy.  So  it  happens  that  all 
inquiry  concerning  God  is  affected  now  by  considerations 
that  arise  outside  the  field  of  religion.  Questions  of  a 
metaphysical  nature  are  always  with  us,  and  seem  indis¬ 
pensable.  A  practical  conception  of  God  must  have  a 
metaphysical  one,  we  may  think,  for  its  basis.  How  can  we 
even  pray  to  him,  we  may  ask,  until  we  have  rational  evidence 
that  our  doctrine  of  him  is  tenable  ?  how  make  any  practical 
use  of  his  existence,  unless  we  can  build  our  use  on  valid 
reasonings  ?  Modern  methods  of  thought  are  answerable 
for  much  of  this,  but  theology  must  bear  part  of  the  responsi¬ 
bility,  for  it  has  often  made  metaphysical  grounds  seem  in¬ 
dispensable  even  to  the  simplest  Christian  faith. 

Theology  must  discuss  God  in  metaphysical  light,  but  it  is 
important  to  know  that  not  in  such  discussing  did  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  of  God  originate.  The  Scriptures  that  Jesus 
read  entered  but  very  slightly  into  any  field  of  thought  con¬ 
cerning  God  except  the  practical  and  religious.  The  char¬ 
acter  of  the  narrative  of  creation  at  the  beginning  of  Genesis 
illustrates  the  fact.  Creatorship  is  there  announced,  but  not 
in  the  interest  of  philosophical  thought  or  construction  of 
doctrine.  It  is  announced  in  the  interest  of  religion,  for  the 
illuminating  of  relations  in  which  men  stand  to  God.  So 
the  Old  Testament  throughout  is  not  a  book  of  philosophy 
or  doctrine:  it  is  a  book  of  religion,  in  which  God  appears 
in  his  relations  with  men,  that  they  may  live  with  him  and 
with  one  another  as  they  ought.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the 
law  is  practical,  or  that  it  is  religious,  although  its  idea  of 
religion  is  not  the  highest.  The  prophets  did  not  philosophize 
or  argue — they  adored,  trusted  and  loved;  they  bore  “the 
burden  of  the  Lord^’  in  their  messages  to  men;  they  rebuked, 


24 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


threatened  and  consoled  in  view  of  the  reality  of  the  living 
God. 

What  is  true  of  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  found  is  true  of  the 
doctrine  that  he  gave  forth.  Theology  has  much  metaphys¬ 
ical  doctrine  of  God,  but  it  is  remarkable  how  little  of  it  has 
come  from  any  words  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  concerning  God  he  is  exclusively  a  religious  teacher. 
Of  course  it  is  easy  to  adjust  his  words  to  metaphysical  set¬ 
tings,  and  read  philosophical  meanings  into  them,  and  sup¬ 
pose  that  they  embody  doctrines  that  have  been  modernly 
developed,  but  the  words  themselves  are  of  another  kind. 
They  are  simply  words  of  real  life  and  practice.  If  they 
sound  metaphysical,  the  context  turns  them  to  religious  use. 
The  synoptical  Gospels  contain  very  little  that  requires  even 
such  help  from  a  context,  for  the  synoptical  teaching  obviously 
moves  in  the  practical  and  religious  realm.  The  baptismal 
formula  illustrates  the  point  as  well  as  anything :  if  we  attribute 
this  to  Jesus,  still  it  is  the  practical  Trinity,  object  of  practical 
faith  and  devotion,  to  which  the  passage  bears  witness,  and 
not  the  metaphysical  doctrine  of  which  historical  theology 
has  been  so  full.  If  we  attribute  to  him  all  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  quotes  as  from  his  lips  the  case  is  still  essentially  the 
same,  for  in  these  utterances  the  intent  is  to  serve  religion: 
there  is  a  deep  mystical  tone  in  the  voice  that  spealcs,  but 
nothing  concerning  God  is  offered  as  a  contribution  to  meta¬ 
physics  or  abstract  thought,  or  even  as  an  explanation  of 
some  mystery  of  his  being.  In  fact,  if  one  were  to  read  only 
the  words  of  Jesus,  unaffected  by  theological  development, 
he  would  scarcely  have  any  metaphysical  doctrine  of  God  at 
all.  He  would  have  a  vivid  and  powerful  conception  of  him, 
but  it  would  live  and  move  and  have  its  being  in  the  atmos¬ 
phere  of  religion. 

This  quality  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  must  be  placed  at  the 
very  front  of  our  inquiry.  From  Jesus  our  Master  we  must 
accept  a  religious  and  practical  doctrine  of  God,  for  that  is 
what  he  offers  us.  According  to  him,  the  religious  element 
comes  first:  our  Master  has  taught  us  religion,  not  philoso- 


THE  SOURCES 


25 


phy:  hence  the  Christian  doctrine  starts  from  recognition  of 
God  in  his  relations  with  men,  and  from  experience  of  men  in 
their  relations  with  God.  It  is  a  doctrine  not  of  speculation 
but  of  life.  Of  course  the  metaphysical  element  must  enter 
into  it  in  due  time,  and  speculative  thought,  which  is  a  legiti¬ 
mate  thing,  must  do  its  work,  but  the  primary  element,  with 
which  speculation  itself  must  deal,  is  religious.  If  this  is 
news,  it  is  good  news. 

Another  fact  must  influence  the  whole  discussion,  namely, 
that  the  thought  of  Jesus  concerning  God  is  necessarily  ex¬ 
pressed  in  terms  belonging  to  the  time  in  which  he  spoke. 
He  spoke  of  God  not  to  men  who  inherited  the  traditions  of 
Christian  thought,  or  even  to  trained  thinkers  of  the  first 
century,  but  to  plain  men  of  his  time,  Jews  with  the  Old 
Testament  in  their  heart  and  memory,  who  were  beginning  to 
respond  to  his  own  uplifting  influence.  Forms  of  thought 
that  belong  to  later  times  we  shall  not  find  in  his  utterances. 
If  his  doctrine  is  to  be  fitted  into  structures  of  later  thought, 
the  work  must  be  done  later:  we  shall  not  find  it  done  by 
him.  This  seems  very  little  to  say,  and  yet  the  saying  it  is 
not  superfluous.  It  means  that  every  Christian  age  must 
cast  the  substance  of  his  teaching  into  forms  that  correspond 
to  its  own  knowledge  and  modes  of  life.  He  gives  us  no 
formula  of  doctrine  concerning  God :  he  gives  a  living  knowl¬ 
edge  of  him,  which  we  must  plant  as  a  living  thing  in  the  soil 
of  our  own  times. 

In  perfect  harmony  with  these  facts  is  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  as  to  the  manner  in  which  knowledge  of  God  is  to  be 
obtained.  It  is  true  that  we  have  no  formal  lesson  from  him 
on  this  subject,  and  yet  he  has  given  us  clear  teaching,  of  the 
utmost  value.  With  him  knowledge  of  God  is  not  school- 
knowledge,  it  is  life-knowledge;  not  information,  but  ac¬ 
quaintance.  The  practical  and  religious  idea  is  still  at  the 
front.  God  is  not  to  be  known  by  reasoning  out  doctrines 
of  him,  but  by  living  with  him  in  the  spirit  which  his  char¬ 
acter  calls  for.  A  man  is  to  know  God  as  a  child  knows  his 
parents,  by  experience.  Information  is  valuable,  but  will 


26 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


never  make  God  known  as  he  is.  Doctrine  is  helpful,  but 
to  know  the  doctrine  of  God,  however  correctly,  is  not  to 
know  God.  Concerning  his  own  acquaintance  with  God, 
Jesus  uttered  the  profound  saying,  “Neither  knoweth 
any  one  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom 
the  Son  wills  to  reveal  him”  (Lk.  x.  22).  His  own  knowl¬ 
edge  is  that  of  a  Son,  who  knows  the  Father  through 
the  intercourse  which  sonship  opens.  It  is  a  knowledge 
founded  in  spiritual  kinship,  and  built  up  in  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  filial  life.  Of  the  same  nature,  it  is  implied,  all 
genuine  knowledge  of  God  must  be.  “He  to  whom  the  Son 
wills  to  reveal  him”  can  be  no  other  than  he  to  whom  the 
Son  can  reveal  him,  the  one  who  is  responding  to  that  grace 
which  will  lead  him  into  the  filial  life,  where  God  is  known  as 
Father  by  his  child.  According  to  Jesus,  God  is  to  be  known 
not  by  theory  but  by  practice,  not  through  mental  investiga¬ 
tion  but  through  spiritual  trust  and  fellowship.  Only  a  son 
can  know  the  Father. 

This  is  good  news,  for  it  opens  knowledge  of  God  to  all 
who  are  ready  to  receive  it.  This  accords  with  Jesus’ 
appreciation  of  the  attitude  of  little  children,  and  shows  why 
that  which  is  hidden  from  the  wise  and  intelligent  may  be 
revealed  to  babes. 

When  we  come  to  the  direct  testimony  of  Jesus  concerning 
God,  we  find  it  summed  up  in  his  own  attitude  and  action. 
In  no  text  is  it  summarized,  and  the  total  of  his  words  would 
not  express  it,  taken  apart  from  his  life.  What  he  thought  of 
God  is  represented  by  what  he  did  in  view  of  him.  He  as¬ 
sumed  God  as  real,  recognized  him  in  a  definite  character 
and  relation  to  himself,  acted  upon  his  reality,  and  showed 
men  what  it  would  mean  for  them  to  do  the  same.  He 
taught  by  living,  assuring  men  of  their  liberty  to  live  with 
God  as  he  did,  and  showing  them  what  such  life  would 
mean. 

The  points  involved  in  this  course  of  practical  teaching  are 
the  essential  points  in  his  religious  conception  of  God.  Some 


THE  SOURCES 


27 


of  them  may  be  drawn  out  in  order;  and  yet  the  formality  of 
such  treatment  of  his  living  thought  almost  calls  for  apology. 

It  is  very  little  to  say  that  the  existence  of  God  was  with 
Jesus  unquestioningly  assumed.  To  think  of  him  as  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  classic  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God  is 
quite  impossible.  The  case  in  the  Old  Testament  is  essen¬ 
tially  the  same;  over  against  idolatry  prophets  endeavour  to 
impress  the  reality  of  the  living  God  upon  the  minds  of  men, 
but  no  one  argues  that  God  exists.  As  for  Jesus,  he  stood  at 
the  summit  of  confidence.  To  him  God  was  real,  and  there 
was  never  need  to  bring  convincement  to  his  mind  or  satis¬ 
faction  to  his  heart  by  way  of  evidence. 

Just  as  simple  and  unartificial  was  his  assumption  of  the 
oneness  of  God.  To  Jesus  monotheism  needed  no  proof. 
His  thought  of  God  was  such  as  to  allow  no  place  for  more 
than  one.  He  assumed  that  the  God  whom  he  trusted  was 
the  only  God,  as  a  man  assumes  the  air  that  he  breathes  or 
the  ground  beneath  his  feet.  To  him  the  God  of  nature  and 
the  God  of  the  soul  were  one.  He  identified  the  God  of 
nature  and  the  Father  of  his  disciples:  ‘‘The  fowls  of  the 
heaven,  .  .  .  your  heavenly  Father  feedeth  them.’’  “If 
God  so  clothe  the  grass  of  the  field,  will  he  not  much  more 
clothe  you  ?”  (Mt.  vi.  26-29)  He  was  always  drawing  from 
nature  illustrations  for  the  life  of  the  soul.  The  oneness  of 
God  is  the  ground  of  his  method  in  the  parables,  where  one 
divine  process  is  represented  as  going  on,  in  the  material 
world  and  in  the  inner  life  of  man.  The  body  of  his  teaching 
justifies  us  in  picturing  Jesus  as  observing  the  manifold 
beauty  and  power  of  nature  around  him,  and  attributing  it 
all  to  the  God  in  whom  his  soul  had  spiritual  peace. 

To  Jesus  the  oneness  of  God  was  as  real  in  the  moral 
realm  as  in  the  natural.  The  fact  of  moral  evil,  the  great 
divisive  and  perplexing  element  in  life,  was  to  him  a  terrible 
reality,  yet  it  suggested  to  him  no  dualism.  Great  as  sin  was, 
he  did  not  regard  the  world  as  divided  between  two  equal 
lords,  or  suspect  that  the  presence  of  sin  proved  his  Father  not 
to  be  actually  over  all.  Rather,  to  him  the  fact  that  God  is 


28 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


over  all  was  what  made  sin  so  horrible.  The  parables  of 
recovery  recorded  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Luke  show  how 
he  regarded  sinful  men  in  their  relation  to  God.  According 
to  that  great  revealing  passage,  he  knew  no  division  of  God’s 
world  by  sin :  sin  destroyed  no  sovereignty  of  God,  and  took 
no  man  out  of  his  field  into  a  region  where  he  belonged  to 
another.  Sinful  men  were  still  God’s  own,  their  sinful  life 
was  still  lived  under  responsibility  to  him,  and  when  they 
came  to  repentance  he  welcomed  them  as  his  own  returning 
to  himself.  Moral  dualism  of  good  and  evil  now  existing, 
Jesus  well  knew;  but  of  moral  dualism  as  really  dividing  the 
realm  of  existence  and  limiting  the  sovereignty  of  the  good 
God,  he  had  no  knowledge. 

Jesus  taught  that  oneness  of  God  which  is  implied  in  the 
personal  nature  of  religion.  For  him  the  life  of  religion  was 
life  in  personal  fellowship  with  the  living  God ;  and  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  if  such  life  is  open  to  one,  it  is  open  to 
all.  Personal  religion  is  universal  religion.  Accordingly  he 
always  gave  the  impression  that  the  God  who  was  God  to 
him  might  in  the  same  spirit  be  God  to  any  man.  It  was  his 
mission  to  bring  men  out  of  moral  alienation  into  such  life 
with  God  as  he  was  living.  In  the  experience  of  a  normal 
relation  to  God  he  did  not  expect  his  own  life  to  be  peculiar, 
for  he  was  calling  men  on  every  side  to  come  and  share  it. 
When  he  said,  “Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are 
heavy-laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest  ”  (Mt.  xi.  28),  he  was 
proclaiming  God  as  one  and  the  same  to  himself  and  all 
others;  for  the  unfolding  of  the  invitation  was,  “Take  my 
yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me,  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly 
in  heart,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls,”  and  the  prom¬ 
ise  gave  assurance  that,  by  taking  the  position  before  God  that 
he  himself  was  holding,  any  weary  soul  might  find  rest.  The 
same  God  would  be  the  same  to  all  who  bowed  before  him, 
and  would  give  the  same  rest  to  any  weary  soul  that  sought  it 
in  humility  and  obedience.  This  practical  identity  of  God 
to  all  who  acknowledge  him  in  reverence  and  trust  is  one  of 
the  most  precious  lessons  of  Jesus  for  the  world,  for  in  this 


THE  SOURCES 


29 


dwells  the  secret  of  universal  religion,  sufficient  to  bless  and 
satisfy  mankind. 

It  is  difficult  to  emphasize  strongly  enough  what  Jesus 
says  of  God’s  attitude  toward  the  sinful.  Religion  has  often 
taught  that  between  the  good  and  the  bad  there  is  a  great  gulf 
fixed ;  that  the  good  must  show  their  disapproval  by  holding 
aloof  from  the  bad,  and  the  greater  the  goodness  the  clearer 
and  more  condemnatory  must  be  the  separation.  As  we 
have  seen,  the  Old  Testament  contains  this  teaching,  but 
with  a  better  doctrine  rising  above  it.  Jesus  detracts  nothing 
from  the  intensity  of  the  Old  Testament’s  condemnation  of  sin. 
Instead  of  that,  he  detaches  sin  from  formal  and  ceremonial 
connections,  and  reveals  it  in  its  true  place  in  the  heart  and 
life.  It  appears  as  a  personal  matter  and  a  real,  a  dreadful 
quality  in  character  and  in  act.  No  influence  has  ever  been 
so  powerful  in  condemning  sin  as  the  influence  of  Jesus.  But 
as  to  the  attitude  of  God  toward  the  sinful,  he  gives  currency 
and  power  to  that  better  doctrine  which  was  already  present 
in  the  Scriptures.  With  him,  there  is  “joy  in  heaven  over 
one  sinner  that  repen teth”  (Lk.  xv.  7):  scribes  and  Pharisees 
may  murmur,  but  he  is  glad  when  the  wicked  forsake  their 
way,  and  so  is  God;  however  it  may  be  on  earth,  there  is  joy 
in  heaven.  Not  only  so,  but  God,  like  himself,  seeks  to 
bring  the  sinful  home.  Jesus  absolutely  reverses  the  idea  that 
God  holds  himself  aloof  from  sinners,  and  reveals  him  as  the 
generous,  helpful,  forgiving  God,  who  is  always  seeking  to  save 
men  from  the  evil  that  he  hates.  The  superiority  and  aloof¬ 
ness  of  the  religious,  which  was  supposed  to  be  an  imitation 
of  God,  was  a  strong  argument  for  despair  to  those  who  were 
regarded  as  sinful,  but  Jesus  wakened  hope  in  such  by  show¬ 
ing  them  that  God  loved  them.  He  made  them  feel  that  his 
own  sympathetic  endeavour  to  bring  them  home  was  a  true 
expression  of  God  himself.  His  principle  was  that  the  good 
will  do  good  to  the  evil,  and  God  most  of  all,  since  he  is  the 
best.  Sinful  souls  may  imagine  that  to  run  away  from  God 
is  the  only  safety,  but  he  encourages  them  to  run  into  God, 
their  refuge  and  strong  tower,  their  Saviour.  Loving  kind- 


30 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


ness  toward  the  sinful  is  the  very  heart  of  the  God  whom  he 
makes  known.  This  was  not  a  new  teaching,  but  it  was  a 
teaching  never  yet  brought  to  fulness  and  power,  and  as  a  gift 
to  the  world  it  is  entirely  right  to  call  it  Jesus’  own.  The 
most  truly  Christian  doctrine  of  God  is  that  which  does  best 
justice  to  this  matchless  revelation.  A  sinful  world  could 
never  have  devised  it  or  discovered  it,  and  does  not  even  yet 
believe  it,  nor  do  even  Christians  yet  accept  it  with  all  that 
it  means,  but  it  is  to  be  welcomed  as  the  utterance  of  One 
who  knew  God  as  a  Son  knows  a  Father. 

There  was  great  revealing  also  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as 
to  what  it  is  that  pleases  God.  The  idea  was  abroad  among 
his  contemporaries  that  what  God  desired  was  obedience  to 
his  Law,  which  Israel  possessed,  and  that  he  expected  men  to 
deserve  his  favour  by  doing  the  things  that  he  had  prescribed. 
Of  course  the  Law  with  its  institutions  was  largely  an  external 
thing,  as  a  law  must  be;  hence  it  was  understood  that  God 
required  strict  attention  to  external  obedience,  and  was 
pleased  with  scrupulous  conformity  to  his  commandments. 
Thus  conscience  became  self-judgment  respecting  a  thousand 
particulars,  and  into  religion  there  entered  a  thousand  unre¬ 
ligious  acts.  Even  wherein  the  demands  of  God’s  Law  were 
more  ethical,  the  legal  idea  led  men  to  think  that  they  were 
to  deserve  his  favour  by  their  virtue.  All  this  was  natural, 
for  a  system  of  law  in  religion  is  necessarily  a  system  of 
merits,  and  implies  that  its  God  is  One  who  can  be  satisfied 
by  the  meritorious  fulfilling  of  a  law.  But  Jesus  gave  a  very 
different  impression  as  to  the  thing  that  is  pleasing  to  God. 
His  God  is  not  a  God  of  legalism  at  all.  His  will  for  men 
cannot  be  embodied  in  commandments,  nor  is  obedience  to 
commandments  the  thing  with  which  he  can  be  satisfied. 
The  God  of  Jesus  is  the  God  of  reality  and  spiritual  life. 
He  wants  sons,  men  so  like  him  in  character  and  love  that  their 
own  hearts  will  impel  them  to  the  life  that  he  delights  in. 
He  seeks  not  obedience  to  a  law  but  response  to  a  God. 
He  is  to  be  pleased  not  by  specific  conformity  but  by  intelli¬ 
gent  loyalty,  and  accepts  men  not  when  they  have  kept  his 


THE  SOURCES 


31 


commandments  but  when  they  accept  him  as  their  God. 
His  favour  cannot  be  earned  by  merit,  but  it  is  gained  by 
acceptance  of  his  fellowship,  to  which  he  graciously  summons 
all.  He  is  a  God  who  calls  for  trust  in  his  love,  unity  with 
his  holiness  and  loyalty  to  himself,  all  in  the  genuine  heart 
and  the  real  life. 

It  was  in  this  most  particularly  that  Jesus  proclaimed  a 
new  religion.  He  called  men  away  from  religion  without  to 
religion  within,  from  religion  of  forms  to  religion  of  reality, 
from  reliance  upon  merits  to  trust  in  God.  He  thus  reveals 
a  God  whose  demand  is  the  demand  of  his  own  character, 
whose  service  is  perfect  freedom,  and  whose  grace  is  the  hope 
of  his  creation.  All  this  is  in  sharpest  contrast  to  the  religion 
of  law  in  the  midst  of  which  Jesus  lived.  It  is  true  indeed 
that  the  prophets  were  forerunners  of  such  a  religion,  but  that 
only  reminds  us  that  Jesus  was  successor  and  heir  to  the  re¬ 
ligion  of  the  prophets,  and  not  to  that  of  the  Law.  With 
Jesus  first  this  religion  of  spiritual  reality  and  freedom  came 
to  its  place  and  power,  and  by  him  first  it  was  firmly  grounded 
in  the  character  of  God.  He  it  was  who  taught  the  world 
that  the  living  God  is  the  God  of  such  religion. 

In  perfect  harmony  with  this  teaching,  Jesus  sets  forth  the 
relation  in  which  God  and  men  stand  to  each  other,  and  in 
which  it  is  right  that  they  should  live.  We  are  struck  at  once 
when  we  approach  him  by  the  fact  that  his  idea  of  this  relation 
is  extremely  simple  and  intelligible.  The  mysterious  ele¬ 
ments  in  the  relation  of  human  and  divine  are  not  prominent 
in  his  discourse.  If  we  follow  his  thought  in  simplicity  of 
spirit  we  shall  find  the  relation  difficult  indeed  because  it  is 
morally  exacting,  but  not  perplexing  through  obscurity.  The 
name  that  Jesus  gives  to  God  in  relation  to  men  is  as  simple 
and  natural  as  it  is  great  and  rich  in  revelation.  His  favourite 
name  for  God  is  Father.  Not  only  is  it  true  that  his  own 
relation  to  God  was  filial,  but  also  that  into  the  filial  relation 
and  life  he  called  men,  offering  it  to  them  as  their  own.  This 
conception  was  by  no  means  peculiar  to  Jesus,  nor  was  it  new 


32 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


when  he  took  it  up,  but  it  is  the  most  characteristic  of  all 
thoughts  respecting  God  that  appear  in  his  teaching,  and  the 
one  under  which,  more  than  any  other,  the  others  must  be 
gathered.  It  is  true  that  there  has  been  much  perplexity 
over  the  meaning  of  this  name  when  applied  to  God,  and  the 
discussions  of  it  have  not  always  been  free  from  bitterness. 
But  if  we  simply  take  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  it  stands,  and 
bring  in  no  perplexing  elements  from  without,  there  will  be 
no  difficulty  in  perceiving  what  the  name  Father  meant  to 
him,  and  the  name  will  be  found  to  constitute  a  worthy  heart 
for  a  doctrine  of  God. 

Here  again  we  meet  the  fact  that  his  teaching  moves  on 
the  practical  plane,  and  leaves  abstractions  aside.  Nowhere 
does  he  tell,  or  hint,  how  God  came  to  be  Father  to  men,  or 
to  himself.  He  treats  the  relation  of  Fatherhood  in  God 
simply  as  existing,  and  as  a  fact  of  which  men  may  avail 
themselves.  He  exhibits  it  as  open  to  their  use,  and  tells 
them  how  they  may  live  in  accordance  with  the  claim  that  it 
makes  and  the  privilege  that  it  offers.  He  treats  it  as  he 
might  treat  any  other  present  reality  into  which  men  may 
enter  and  find  it  enriching  their  life  and  fulfilling  their 
destiny. 

A  reader  cannot  fail  to  notice  that  Jesus  treats  the  human 
life  that  corresponds  to  God’s  Fatherhood  as  one  that  ought 
to  be  existing  in  full  force  and  beneficence.  The  relation  of 
sons  is  not  a  special  creation:  when  men  live  rightly  they 
live  in  accordance  with  it.  The  filial  life  that  is  described 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  the  life  in  which  man  finds  his 
true  place  and  fulfils  his  nature.  For  it  he  was  made. 
This  element  in  the  teaching  is  helpful  in  defining  our  con¬ 
ception  of  God  as  Father,  for  it  indicates  and  assumes  that 
God  regards  men  as  his  own.  The  human  parent  regards 
the  child  as  his  own,  for  the  good  reason  that  he  is  his  own. 
The  relation  is  one  of  fact,  recognized  in  affection  and  in  life. 
This  element  of  real  belonging,  so  familiar  and  so  beneficent 
in  the  human  family,  Jesus  assumes  as  underlying  all  mani¬ 
festations  of  the  divine  Fatherhood  toward  men.  Whatever 


THE  SOURCES 


33 


the  reason  may  be,  God  considers  human  beings  as  his  own, 
on  him  dependent,  to  him  responsible,  to  him  by  nature 
responsive.  We  may  inquire  how  this  came  to  pass,  and 
when  we  do  so  we  shall  naturally  ground  it  in  the  creative 
relation  and  the  kinship  of  spirit  with  spirit.  God  is  the 
source  of  men’s  existence,  and  they  bear  his  spiritual  likeness; 
whence  it  is  most  natural  that  they  should  be  found  depen¬ 
dent  upon  God,  responsible  to  him,  and  by  nature  adapted 
to  respond  to  his  holiness  and  grace.  This  explanation 
we  find  reasonable.  But  Jesus  nowhere  brings  it  out. 
He  takes  the  relation  as  he  finds  it,  and  shows  men 
how  God  regards  them  as  his  own,  and  teaches  them  how 
to  fulfil  the  relation  on  their  side.  Some  men  have  be¬ 
come  aware  of  the  relation  and  begun  to  act  upon  it,  and 
some  have  not,  but  on  the  side  of  God,  and  in  deepest 
reality,  it  belongs  to  them  all,  since  he  looks  upon  them  as 
his  own. 

According  to  Jesus,  the  fatherly  relation  of  God  is  a  relation 
of  love,  care  and  discipline,  all  corresponding  to  that  parental 
proprietorship  which  is  always  implied,  and  to  the  holy 
character  which  belongs  to  God  forever. 

The  element  of  love  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  Parent¬ 
hood  implies  love,  and  the  God  whom  Jesus  knows  is  One  to 
whom  love  belongs.  If  we  imagine  the  Being  into  whose  face 
Jesus  looked,  and  try  to  interpret  the  name  Father  as  applied 
to  him,  the  element  of  love  will  be  the  first  to  reach  our  hearts. 
And  the  love  which  we  attribute  to  God  will  of  course  be 
coloured  in  our  thought  by  the  character  which  Jesus  has 
helped  us  to  behold  in  him.  It  will  be  a  faithful,  pure  and 
holy  affection,  desirous  of  doing  the  highest  and  worthiest 
good  to  its  objects,  hating  evil  and  leading  into  right.  All 
worthy  severity  will  be  as  normal  to  it  as  all  worthy  tender¬ 
ness.  Such  love  will  work  itself  out  in  just  such  action  as 
Jesus  attributes  to  God  as  Father.  It  appears,  he  says,  in 
faithful  and  watchful  care;  ^‘your  Father  knoweth  that  ye 
have  need  of  all  these  things”  (Mt.  vi.  32).  It  appears  no 
less  in  holy  strictness  and  discipline,  requiring  in  his  children 


34 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


conformity  to  his  own  spirit  of  holy  conduct;  *‘if  ye  forgive 
not  men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your  Father  forgive 
your  trespasses’^  (vi.  14).  And  in  such  a  relation  there  is 
of  course  on  the  side  of  God  complete  and  cordial  accessi¬ 
bility  for  his  children;  ‘‘pray  to  thy  Father”  (vi.  6).  In  his 
paternal  character  God  tenderly  loves  the  human  children 
who  rightfully  belong  to  him,  he  attends  to  their  necessities 
in  an  unforgetful  providence,  he  trains  them  in  likeness  to  his 
own  character,  and  he  is  freely  open  to  their  approaches  in 
trustful  prayer.  His  Fatherhood  is  as  holy  as  it  is  sweet,  as 
strict  as  it  is  tender,  and  the  best  possible  good  comes  to  men 
when  they  meet  it  with  a  filial  loyalty  that  corresponds  to  its 
divine  nobility. 

The  true  response  to  the  Fatherhood  of  God  includes  the 
acceptance  of  his  will  as  the  best  possible  good.  This  was 
the  constant  attitude  of  Jesus  himself:  he  accepted  the  will 
of  God,  not  only  in  submission  but  in  aspiration — not  only  as 
a  will  to  be  wrought  upon  him,  but  as  a  will  to  be  accom¬ 
plished  by  him.  When  he  said  in  Gethsemane,  “  Thy  will  be 
done”  (Mt.  xxvi.  42),  he  proposed  not  only  to  endure  the  will 
of  God,  but  to  rise  and  do  it.  Such  response  to  the  Father 
he  enjoined  upon  all  the  children.  Since  the  Father  is  perfect, 
the  child  must  aspire  to  be  perfect.  So  good  is  he  that  his 
will  is  worthy  to  be  accepted  by  all  his  children  as  their  own. 
This  representation  of  God  places  him  and  men  in  the  noblest 
relation  that  can  be  conceived,  since  it  brings  all  his  moral 
excellence  to  bear  upon  human  life  with  genuine  uplifting 
power. 

Side  by  side  with  divine  Fatherhood,  in  the  discourse  of 
Jesus,  stands  the  Kingdom  of  God.  If  we  were  to  say  that 
he  spoke  of  God  as  king,  we  should  speak  in  too  modern  a 
manner;  but  the  kingdom  of  God  was  often  upon  his  lips. 
This  was  inevitable  if  he  was  to  speak  at  all  to  the  people 
among  whom  he  was  born,  for  the  idea  and  expectation 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  part  of  their  very  life.  There 
is  room  for  question  as  to  how  far  his  use  of  the  familiar 


THE  SOURCES 


35 


phrase  coincided  with  the  common  use  of  his  day  and  how 
far  it  departed  from  it;  yet  the  contribution  that  he  made 
to  the  conception  of  God  by  means  of  this  phrase  is  largely 
independent  of  any  such  ambiguity  as  this  question  may 

imply. 

Students  of  the  Gospels  are  divided  as  to  whether  Jesus 
conceived  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  Jewish  manner,  as  a 
kingdom  to  be  established  in  this  world  immediately,  in 
methods  corresponding  to  the  apocalyptic  hopes,  or  whether 
for  him  the  idea  was  wholly  spiritual  and  the  kingdom  con¬ 
sisted  in  the  moral  dominion  of  God  over  the  hearts  and  lives 
of  men.  The  latter  view  has  been  the  more  common,  but 
many  students  think  that  the  former  is  properly  contained  in 
the  records.  Of  course  it  is  partly  a  question  of  historical 
criticism,  seeking  to  know  what  he  actually  said.  Probably 
it  cannot  be  claimed  that  the  question  of  Jesus’  mental  picture 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  has  yet  been  finally  answered.  But 
his  mental  picture  of  the  God  of  the  kingdom  is  more  ascer¬ 
tainable.  Whether  we  study  his  own  words,  or  examine  the 
conception  of  God  that  he  handed  on  to  those  who  learned  of 
him,  we  find  a  God  whose  kingship  is  so  merged  in  the  Father¬ 
hood  as  to  be  no  longer  of  the  ancient  earthly  kind.  He 
represents  the  relation  with  God  into  which  men  are  brought 
as  a  family  relation,  rather  than  a  governmental  or  official 
one.  The  dominion  of  God  over  men  that  he  pictures  and 
commends  is  a  dominion  of  the  divine  worthiness  over  the 
human  life.  If  it  is  true  that  the  apocalyptic  description  of 
the  coming  kingdom  is  really  found  in  the  language  of  Jesus 
in  the  Gospels,  even  then  the  thought  which  the  apocalyptic 
language  represents  is  only  a  passing  form,  and  the  abiding 
substance  in  his  conception  of  the  kingdom  is  the  moral  and 
spiritual  reign  of  God  over  human  life.  It  is  not  surprising 
that  in  the  Epistles,  and  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  phrase 
“kingdom  of  God”  almost  disappears,  while  God  as  Father 
stands  out  in  clearest  light.  It  is  true  that  some  elements  of 
the  Jewish  conception  of  the  kingdom  have  long  survived,  in 
the  advent-hope  and  its  kindred  thoughts.  Nevertheless,  the 


36 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OP  GOD 


fact  remains  that  Jesus  himself  contributed  an  understanding 
of  the  prayer  “Thy  kingdom  come’’  so  spiritual  and  practical 
as  in  the  main  to  banish  the  ancient  idea  of  a  temporal 
kingdom,  and  bring  in  confidence  in  the  spiritual  reign  of 
God. 

God  reigning  in  his  beneficent  holiness  and  grace  is  the 
God  whom  Jesus  commends  to  the  loyalty  and  confidence  of 
men.  This  reign,  or  dominion,  or  control,  according  to  him, 
is  God’s  by  right,  and  men  are  justly  bound  to  do  it  honour. 
God  is  their  rightful  Lord  and  Judge.  His  claim  of  obedience 
is  upon  them.  His  will  is  that  which  they  ought  to  do,  and  he 
requires  them  to  do  it.  All  this,  which  is  commonly  associated 
with  royal  authority  and  the  kingdom  of  God,  enters  into 
Jesus’  thought  and  teaching,  and  yet  there  is  nothing  in  this 
whole  range  of  ideas  that  does  not  fall  within  the  field  of 
Fatherhood  as  he  portrays  it.  Here  Jesus  far  surpasses  those 
who  were  before  him.  What  others  pictured  under  the  form 
of  an  outward  institution,  he  set  forth  as  belonging  to  a 
natural  relation.  The  right,  the  righteousness,  the  serious¬ 
ness,  the  strictness,  the  urgency,  the  control,  which  had 
been  associated  with  the  ruling  of  a  king,  Jesus  gathers  in, 
along  with  proprietorship  and  love  and  care  and  discipline, 
under  the  relation  of  a  Father.  Regal  authority  he  trans¬ 
forms  into  parental  authority,  which  makes  its  own  appeal 
because  it  is  not  arbitrary  but  natural,  not  special  but  es¬ 
sential  to  the  relation  in  which  God  and  men  exist.  The 
Gospels  do  not  contain  the  idea  that  God  as  king  demands 
the  loyalty  of  men  as  subjects,  but  they  are  full  of  the 
idea  that  God  as  Father  claims  the  loyalty  of  men  as  his 
children.  With  Jesus  the  sovereignty  of  God  is  undimin¬ 
ished,  but  is  transfigured  by  the  light  of  the  Fatherhood  shin¬ 
ing  through. 

If  we  imagine  that  this  change  detracts  from  the  serious¬ 
ness  of  the  relation  in  which  men  stand  to  God  we  have  not 
understood  the  Master.  The  holiness  of  God  is  scarcely 
mentioned  in  direct  terms  in  the  Gospels,  but  is  the  underly¬ 
ing  fact  in  all  that  Jesus  said.  It  is  always  both  implied  and 


THE  SOURCES 


37 


apparent  that  God  is  all-pure,  that  sin  is  contrary  to  his  nature 
and  his  will,  and  that  to  him  men  in  their  sinfulness  are 
responsible.  Above  all  others  Jesus  has  made  God  known 
as  the  enemy  of  sin  in  the  world.  Above  all  others  he  has 
taught  how  terrible  a  thing  it  is  to  cast  in  one’s  lot  with  sin 
and  identify  one’s  self  with  its  destiny,  and  all  because  God 
is  what  he  is.  His  reproofs  of  selfishness,  insincerity,  heart¬ 
lessness,  falseness  before  God  and  wrong  toward  men,  are 
unparalleled  in  their  severity.  His  warnings  of  doom  to  those 
who  persist  in  evil  have  burned  themselves  into  the  memory 
and  convictions  of  Christendom;  and  the  reproofs  and 
warnings  are  all  grounded  in  the  character  of  God  and  the 
relations  of  men  to  him.  The  holiness  of  the  Father  is  as 
terrible  to  an  evil  will  as  it  is  glorious  and  lovely  to  the  loyal 
heart. 

If  we  ask  what  elements  in  Jesus’  conception  of  God  are 
most  characteristically  his  own,  the  question  is  not  so  easily 
answerable  in  terms  of  doctrine  as  in  terms  of  life.  In 
thought,  he  did  not  add  so  very  much  to  what  was  known  of 
God.  He  unfolded  the  highest  that  Hebrew  faith  had 
reached,  and  did  not  radically  alter  it.  This  is  to  say  that 
the  heart  of  his  testimony  is  one  with  what  has  been  known, 
dimly  or  clearly,  in  the  general  religious  life  of  mankind. 
All  religion  has  been  prophetic  of  his  God,  and  has  caught 
glimpses  of  him.  Nevertheless  the  testimony  of  Jesus  con¬ 
cerning  God  has  its  clear  characteristic  elements,  making  it 
unique. 

1.  From  the  conception  of  God  he  throws  off  all  that  is 
not  ethical.  With  him  character  enters  into  all,  and  all  con¬ 
ceptions  that  do  not  have  it  for  their  life  are  dead.  Therefore 
all  formalities  and  externalities  drop  away,  and  all  satisfaction 
of  God  in  acts  non-moral  vanishes.  It  is  impossible  to  think 
of  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus  as  pleased  with  service  offered 
to  himself  in  outward  forms  in  which  the  inner  life  has  no 
expression.  He  is  a  God  whom  men  must  know  as  moral 
through  and  through. 


38 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


2.  As  to  character,  he  attributes  to  God  all  that  the  human 
heart  and  judgment  can  approve,  and  encourages  men  to  at¬ 
tribute  to  him  nothing  else.  In  a  plain  and  reasonable  sense, 
his  God  is  all-good  and  all-worthy.  His  goodness  is  of  such 
nature  that  all  human  goodness  points  up  to  it,  and  all  good¬ 
ness  that  men  may  ever  be  able  to  conceive  may  be  gath¬ 
ered  about  it  in  perfect  harmony.  He  clarified,  sim¬ 
plified  and  harmonized  the  idea  of  perfect  goodness,  and 
planted  it,  under  the  name  of  God,  in  the  soil  of  human 
life. 

3.  He  presents  God  in  the  closest  and  most  beneficent  rela¬ 
tions  with  men.  He  knows  no  distant  God,  no  God  unap¬ 
proachable.  His  God  is  at  hand  to  all,  holding  himself  aloof 
from  none,  loving  and  seeking  the  sinful.  He  is  the  Father 
of  men,  who  embraces  them  in  his  love,  searches  them  with 
his  judgments,  hates  their  sins,  is  accessible  to  their  prayers, 
watches  over  their  life,  and  is  at  the  disposal  of  all  who  desire 
his  grace.  Their  life  is  the  sphere  in  which  he  desires  to  be 
manifest. 

4.  To  crown  all,  he  presents  God  as  the  supreme  ideal,  the 
goal  of  human  faith  and  hope;  for  he  reveals  him  as  the 
Father,  sonship  to  whom  is  fulfilment  of  human  nature  and 
destiny.  Above  all  human  dreams  and  endeavours  he  shows 
God  the  eternal  Goodness,  revealed  there  not  as  a  glory  for¬ 
ever  separate  from  man,  but  as  a  glory  into  which  man  may 
enter;  and  he  offers  as  the  inspiring  guide  of  life  the  amazing 
word,  “Ye  shall  be  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  who  is  in 
heaven  is  perfect’’  (Mt.  v.  48). 

5.  This  high  lesson  Jesus  has  brought  home  to  men  in  two 
ways.  On  the  one  hand  he  has  taught  that  what  God  was  to 
him  in  his  own  life,  God  would  be  to  any  man.  On  the  other 
hand  he  has  made  the  impression  that  the  high  goodness  of 
purity  and  love  that  appeared  in  Jesus  himself  was  the  truest 
representation  of  God  that  has  ever  appeared  in  this  world  of 
men,  and  was  an  adequate  expression  of  God  in  human  life. 
This  twofold  teaching  is  the  most  effective  manifestation  of 
God  that  was  ever  made. 


THE  SOURCES 


39 


That  which  we  name  the  Lord’s  Prayer  gathers  up  in  prac¬ 
tical  effect  the  testimony  of  Jesus  concerning  God : 

“Our  Father,  who  art  God, 

Be  thou  revered. 

Be  thou  supreme. 

Thy  purpose  and  thy  pleasure  be  fulfilled, 

As  with  thyself,  so  among  men. 

“Father,  provide  for  thy  children: 

Daily  give  us  bread. 

Father,  forgive  thy  children: 

For  we  have  forgiven  those  who  did  us  wrong. 

“Father,  protect  thy  children: 

Bring  us  not  into  peril  of  sinning. 

But  deliver  us  from  the  evil  power.” 

(3)  The  Early  Christian  Experience 

Out  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus,  recorded  in  the  Gospels, 
came  that  great  result  which  we  call  Christianity,  and  that 
peculiar  development  in  life  which  we  call  the  Christian 
experience.  The  whole  story  of  the  Christian  experience  in 
any  age  has  never  been  told,  but  the  latter  half  of  our  New 
Testament  gives  us  some  clear  glimpses  into  the  Christian 
experience  of  the  first  generations  after  Christ.  Though  we 
long  for  greater  fulness  of  portrayal,  still  we  see,  in  the 
light  of  reality,  what  that  new  life  meant  to  the  men  who 
lived  it. 

The  early  Christian  experience  was  a  new  life  in  God. 
To  Gentiles  it  was  in  great  measure  life  in  a  new  God;  and  to 
Jews  it  was  life  in  a  God  partly  new,  known  in  new  light  and 
fulness,  and  with  attention  to  qualities  dimly  known  before. 
It  was  new  life  in  God,  in  which  Jesus  Christ  was  revealer,  in¬ 
troducer,  helper,  inspiration,  guide.  It  was  new  life  in 
Christ;  but  it  could  not  have  been  that  if  it  had  not  been  new 
life  in  God.  The  truth  constitutive  of  the  new  experience 
was,  that  God  so  loved  the  world  as  to  be  in  Christ  its  Saviour 
(John  iii.  16).  Fundamental  in  this  truth  was  the  relation 


40 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


of  God  to  his  world;  and  the  dominant  fact  was  that  that 
relation  was  of  such  nature  as  to  be  truly  expressed  in  the 
gift  of  his  Son  to  mankind  and  the  work  of  grace  that  Jesus 
had  performed.  In  that  early  experience  God  appears  as  all- 
pure,  condemning  evil,  and  as  all-gracious,  loving  men,  and 
seeking  to  put  away  the  evil  that  he  condemns.  Men  are 
his,  and  he  acknowledges  them,  and  seeks  to  bring  them 
spiritually  to  himself. 

It  still  remains  true,  as  in  the  teaching  of  the  Master,  that 
emphasis  falls  first  of  all  upon  the  practical  aspect  of  the 
conception  of  God.  God  appears  in  relations  with  men. 
Metaphysical  aspects  of  his  being  are  scarcely  in  sight,  while 
his  character,  his  attitude  of  heart  toward  men,  and  his 
action  for  their  welfare,  are  at  the  front.  The  God  of  those 
who  had  learned  of  Jesus  was  like  the  God  of  Jesus  himself, 
a  God  at  hand,  in  closest  relations  with  men,  and  known  in 
his  intimate  work  of  redemption  and  saving  help.  The 
doctrine  of  God  is  still  a  doctrine  of  religion.  Within  the 
New  Testament  we  have  indeed  the  beginning  of  Christian 
theology,  and  find  views  of  God  that  move  within  the  field  of 
metaphysics.  Yet  in  the  apostolic  writings  theology  has 
scarcely  at  all  become  self-conscious,  and  the  metaphysical 
touches  are  all  in  the  interest  of  religious  faith  and  life.  The 
modern  theological  mind  has  found  in  the  New  Testament 
far  more  theology,  strictly  so-called,  than  is  really  there,  and 
needs  to  recognize  more  simply  the  vast  excess  of  religion  over 
theology  in  the  sacred  books. 

To  some  extent  we  may  be  able  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place 
of  the  Christians  of  the  first  age.  Suddenly  there  had  risen 
before  them  the  most  splendid  Figure  that  has  ever  been 
present  to  the  thought  and  faith  of  men,  the  Christ  of  the 
Epistles.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  indeed  that  to  the  body  of 
the  Christian  people  that  figure  was  so  distinct  and  glorious 
as  it  was  to  Paul  and  his  companions  in  leadership,  but  cer¬ 
tainly  here  they  all  obtained  their  inspiration  and  newness  of 
life.  The  Christ  of  the  Epistles  is  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels 
raised  to  the  glory  of  God  in  the  unseen  world,  radiant  with 


THE  SOURCES 


41 


the  beauty  of  holiness  and  love  that  had  shone  in  his  life 
and  death,  revealing  in  the  eternal  Godhead  all  the  loveliness, 
adorableness  and  redemptive  grace  that  had  been  manifested 
in  himself,  and  standing  forth  as  medium  and  representative 
of  the  divine  salvation  that  was  making  all  things  new.  If 
we  were  among  the  early  Christians  we  should  be  aware, 
through  this  vision  of  newly-revealed  reality,  of  a  new  sense 
of  God:  this  perhaps  would  be  the  greatest  new  thing  of  all. 
If  we  were  of  the  Gentiles,  it  would  be  a  sense  of  God  as  one 
only  God,  holy  and  gracious:  and  this  would  be  not  only  a 
new  sense  of  God,  but  almost  a  sense  of  a  new  God.  If  we 
were  of  Jewish  training,  the  God  proclaimed  by  the  prophets 
would  now  appear  in  new  glory  through  his  revelation  of  him¬ 
self  in  Christ.  In  Christ  we  should  behold  him :  looking  upon 
Christ  we  should  discern  his  character  and  heart  revealed. 
With  a  glad  surprise  we  should  find  ourselves  living  our  daily 
life  in  God  and  Christ,  as  in  an  atmosphere  of  invigorating 
purity  and  love.  We  should  recognize  God  as  the  living  One, 
alone,  over  all,  and  ourselves  as  mysteriously  precious  to  his 
heart;  God  as  holy,  awful,  righteous,  and  ourselves  as  sinful, 
unworthy,  unresponsive;  yet  God  as  reconciling  men  to  him¬ 
self  in  Christ,  and  ourselves  as  receiving  the  reconciliation  by 
his  gracious  help;  God  as  our  Father,  and  ourselves  as  enter¬ 
ing  in  Christ  into  the  life  and  lot  as  his  children;  God  as 
making  life  new,  and  our  own  life  as  taken  up  into  his  renew¬ 
ing  grace  and  made  forever  worth  living.  The  early  Christian 
gift  received  was  this  marvellous  uplifting  of  life;  and  the 
secret  of  the  great  uplifting  was  that  God  was  acting  out  in 
Christ  his  own  heart  and  character,  and  offering  himself  as 
the  saving  Friend  that  he  really  was.  Between  God  and 
Christ,  in  the  contemplation  of  this  life,  there  was  no  contrast 
or  rivalry.  God  was  in  Christ  and  Christ  was  in  God. 
Each  implied  the  other,  and  from  either  or  from  both  was  the 
gift  received.  Christ  was  unspeakably  precious  because 
the  glory  of  God  was  seen  in  his  face,  and  God  was  unspeak¬ 
ably  precious  because  in  the  beloved  Christ  he  stood  re¬ 
vealed.  Christ  was  Saviour  because  he  brought  salvation 


42 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


from  the  heart  of  God,  and  God  was  Saviour  because  in  Christ 
he  had  found  his  way  to  the  heart  of  men. 

In  a  word,  life  was  made  worth  living  by  the  relation  in 
which  God  now  stood  to  the  Christian.  The  relation  specially 
emphasized  was  that  of  Father.  Life  was  splendid  and  in¬ 
vigorating  because  it  was  the  life  of  a  child  of  God.  It  was 
not  by  accident  that,  as  we  have  said,  the  kingly  aspect  of 
God^s  relation  retired  from  prominence.  The  kingdom  of 
God,  inherited  in  idea  from  Hebrew  sources,  retired  mainly 
into  the  future,  and  became  an  eschatological  conception, 
while  the  fatherly  relation  of  God  took  its  place  in  the  world 
of  present  experience.  This  change  was  a  natural  result  of 
the  influence  of  Jesus,  and  a  necessary  consequence  of  that 
personal  quality  in  religion  which  he  promoted.  National 
religion  would  move  on  to  the  ideal  of  a  kingdom  with  God 
as  king,  but  personal  religion  to  the  ideal  of  a  family  with  God 
as  Father.  So  it  is  a  mark  of  true  progress  in  religion  that 
Christians  think  less  of  being  subjects  of  God’s  reign,  and 
glory  in  being  his  sons  in  Christ  Jesus.  If  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  had  made  the  divine  kingship  as  prominent  as  did  the 
Old,  it  would  not  have  been  “the  New  Testament  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.” 

The  ethical  conception  of  God,  existent  in  all  religions, 
powerful  in  Hebraism  and  highest  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
comes  in  the  early  Christian  experience  to  manifold  practical 
application.  Here  men  are  learning  what  it  is  to  live  under 
the  inspiration  of  the  divine  character.  The  ethical  claim 
is  enforced  by  the  character  of  God  and  their  relation  to  him. 
“Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy”  (Lev.  xx.  7:  1  Pet.  i.  17)  was 
spoken  of  old,  but  appears  now  with  new  fulness  of  meaning. 
In  children  of  God,  all  holy  and  worthy  living  is  a  matter  of 
unquestionable  duty,  and  is  destined  to  become  a  matter  of 
unconquerable  nature.  The  forms  of  holiness  and  virtue  are 
numberless  in  real  life,  but  in  them  all  the  problem  is  simply 
how  to  act  as  true  children  of  God.  The  children  should  be 
like  the  Father,  and  the  likeness  to  him  for  which  they  hope 
must  be  attained  through  his  grace  and  their  own  endeavour. 


THE  SOURCES 


43 


The  glory  of  God’s  character  draws  them  on  because  it  is 
their  own  ideal,  and  the  love  that  makes  him  a  Saviour  enlists 
his  children  in  all  works  of  love  and  helpfulness.  This  is  the 
position  of  God  in  the  inspiring  and  forming  of  the  Christian  life. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  ethical  demand  is  wrought  out 
in  the  various  forms  of  duty,  personal  and  social.  As  of  old, 
so  now  more  largely  and  intelligently,  the  ordinary  duties  of 
life  come  under  the  sanction  of  religion,  and  are  at  once  more 
clearly  defined  and  more  strongly  enforced  by  association  with 
the  character  of  God.  To  all  right  living  the  knowledge  of 
God  in  Christ  brings  both  motive  and  guidance.  The  extent 
to  which  this  enlightening  and  inspiring  went  in  the  early 
Christian  life  is  of  course  indicated  only  in  part  by  the  writings 
that  survive  from  the  period.  It  is  certain  that  to  the  Chris¬ 
tians  God  appeared  as  the  sun  of  righteousness,  for  the 
illumining  of  all  conduct. 

The  severity  of  God  and  the  seriousness  of  dealings  with 
him  by  no  means  disappear  in  the  early  Christian  experience. 
That  he  is  holy  with  a  holiness  that  condemns  all  sin  and 
makes  dealings  with  him  dreadful  for  those  who  identify 
themselves  with  evil,  is  a  thought  that  is  always  present,  as  in 
the  teaching  of  the  Master.  The  holy  love  that  desires  to 
save  is  only  another  aspect  of  the  character  that  hates  evil 
and  can  approve  no  choice  of  it.  Soft  and  easy  conceptions 
of  God,  unexacting,  destitute  of  moral  vigour,  have  absolutely 
no  place  in  our  records  of  the  early  Christian  experience. 
But,  of  course,  since  the  Christian  gift  is  gracious,  curative, 
sanctifying,  the  severer  aspect  in  God,  though  always  recog¬ 
nized,  is  secondary  in  the  Christian  conception. 

It  could  not  be  expected  that  Jesus’  own  conception  of 
God  would  be  received  at  once  in  its  fulness,  and  enter  un¬ 
mixed  into  the  Christian  life.  It  fell  into  the  midst  of  in¬ 
herited  ideas.  The  first  Christians  received  from  Jesus,  but 
they  received  also  from  the  past.  The  Hebrew  Christians 
retained  their  old  Scriptures,  and  the  Gentile  converts  ac¬ 
cepted  them,  as  bearing  divine  testimony  concerning  God  in 
all  their  parts;  and  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  contain  much  that 


44 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


accords  with  the  testimony  of  Jesus  about  God,  and  much 
that  does  not.  Moreover,  only  by  perpetual,  universal  and 
unhindered  miracle  could  Gentile  ideas,  long  inherited,  have 
been  prevented  from  influencing  the  actual  thought  of  the 
Christian  people  concerning  God.  Hence  by  necessity  the 
early  experience  embodied  mixed  conceptions.  The  wonder 
is  not  that  the  first  Christians  fell  short  of  the  simplicity  and 
spirituality  of  Jesus  in  thinking  of  God:  the  wonder  is  that 
his  gift  came  home  to  them  with  a  power  so  transforming,  and 
gave  rise  to  an  experience  of  God  so  truly  Christian. 

As  to  the  range  and  scope  of  early  Christian  thought  con¬ 
cerning  God,  he  naturally  was  contemplated  chiefly  within 
the  relation  that  Christian  men  sustained  to  him.  It  is  there 
that  his  Saviourhood  was  manifest,  his  Fatherhood  was 
experienced,  and  his  ethical  appeal  was  felt  in  its  power. 
The  God  of  our  early  Christian  records  is  God  revealed  in 
Christ  and  known  in  Christian  life.  Of  course,  this  would 
be  so,  and  it  would  not  have  been  strange  if  no  other  view  had 
been  given  us.  But  we  have  more.  The  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  contemplate  God  in  his  relations  with  the  general 
humanity,  though  mainly  in  connection  with  his  gracious 
work  in  Christ.  It  is  assumed,  as  in  the  Old  Testament,  that 
God  is  active  and  self-expressing  in  the  order  of  nature,  and 
that  the  world  brings  a  real  revelation  of  him :  so  Paul  affirms 
in  his  declaration  of  universal  responsibility  and  sin,  at  the 
beginning  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  (i.  18-19).  But  the 
universality  of  God’s  relation  to  mankind,  while  it  is  recog¬ 
nized,  is  still  complicated  with  recognition  of  the  special 
privileges  of  Israel.  The  Jewish  people  are  represented  as 
highly  and  exclusively  privileged,  God  being  to  them  what 
he  was  to  no  others.  After  the  large  grace  of  God  in  Christ 
had  appeared  this  ancient  difference  could  not  fail  to  be  the 
subject  of  inquiry.  In  such  discussion  of  it  as  is  recorded 
God  is  set  forth  as  the  one  God  of  all  mankind,  holding  a 
real  and  rightful  sovereignty  over  all,  entitled  to  do  with 
them  as  he  judges  best.  Over  them  all,  as  Paul  concludes, 
he  exercises  a  gracious  intent,  not  an  indifferent  sway,  and  both 


THE  SOURCES 


45 


desires  and  designs  their  good.  In  the  chapters  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  which  treat  of  this  matter  (ix.-xi.)  Paul  very 
briefly  sketches  his  outline  of  the  events  in  which,  as  he  con¬ 
ceives,  the  universal  grace  of  God  will  be  vindicated  against 
the  charge  of  partialism.  The  scheme  is  indicated  in  few 
words,  but  the  doctrine  is  that  God  who  is  over  all  the  world 
rules  it  all  in  the  spirit  that  is  manifested  in  Christ,  Gentiles 
as  well  as  Jews  having  been  always  included  in  his  gracious 
counsel.  Paul  represents  that  his  grace  in  Christ  is  equally 
free  to  all  men,  because  God  himself  is  one,  and  stands  in 
one  relation  to  all  humanity  (Rom.  iii.  29-30).  Nevertheless, 
the  universality  of  this  relation  has  not  yet  worked  itself  en¬ 
tirely  free  from  the  inherited  influence  of  Jewish  partialism. 

The  early  Christian  experience  depended  upon  no  philo¬ 
sophical  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  God  to  the  world.  No  such 
doctrine  do  we  find  in  our  records.  The  Hebrew  idea  of  the 
presence  of  God  in  nature  still  lived,  but  finds  little  expression 
beyond  the  synoptical  Gospels.  It  is  not  in  the  Epistles  that 
we  read,  “Consider  the  lilies  of  the  field,  how  they  grow” 
(Mt.  vi.  28).  A  design  of  God  in  the  events  of  life  is  joyfully 
affirmed,  and  what  we  are  wont  to  call  Providence  is  recog¬ 
nized  as  a  great  reality.  God  is  not  far  away.  To  those  who 
love  him,  all  things  work  together  for  good.  He  gives  a 
peace  that  passeth  understanding.  He  is  the  God  of  all 
consolation,  and  the  God  of  hope.  He  is  the  rightful  Lord 
and  righteous  Judge  of  men,  from  whose  just  governance  no 
one  can  escape.  The  doctrine  of  the  Logos  in  the  thought 
of  the  age  implied  a  distant  God,  transcendent  in  the  sense 
of  superior  and  separate,  communicating  with  the  world 
through  intermediaries.  But  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  where  the 
Logos  is  introduced  (i.  1-18),  there  is  nothing  of  this  in¬ 
tended,  for  here  the  Logos  is  not  an  intermediary,  but  a  mode 
or  manifestation  of  God  himself.  God  himself  is  in  touch 
with  his  world.  Throughout  the  New  Testament  God  is  con¬ 
ceived  as  free  and  independent  in  his  relation  to  the  world, 
not  in  bondage  to  the  order  of  nature,  but  able  to  act  at 
his  own  volition  in  human  affairs. 


46 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


The  early  Christian  experience  contained  the  elements 
out  of  which  was  formed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The 
Christian  heart  knew  God  as  he  had  been  known  of  old,  only 
now  more  clearly  through  that  great  expression  of  his  being 
which  the  new  gospel  made.  It  was  indebted  for  this  fresh 
manifestation  of  God  to  Jesus,  who  had  already  begun  that 
marvellous  work,  continued  till  now,  of  creating  the  convic¬ 
tion  that  God  was  like  him  and  in  him  was  truly  expressed. 
And  it  was  indebted  again  to  that  glorious  interior  life,  where¬ 
in  God  was  found  inhabiting  the  human  spirit  and  transform¬ 
ing  men  into  his  own  likeness.  God,  God  in  Christ,  God  in 
men;  Father,  Son,  Spirit;  these  were  the  forms  that  the 
thought  of  God  assumed  under  the  interpretation  which  the 
new  experience  gave  it.  The  developing  of  this  testimony 
into  a  doctrine  came  later  in  the  course  of  Christian  thought, 
and  at  present  it  is  necessary  only  to  exhibit  the  facts  of  experi¬ 
ence  out  of  which  the  doctrine  sprang.  God  was  thrice 
known,  and  known  in  three  positions,  or  relations,  in  the 
dealings  of  the  soul  with  him.  In  the  days  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  these  three  positions  of  God  were  vividly  discerned, 
with  that  free  spiritual  energy  which  belongs  to  a  great  new 
experience,  and  the  Christian  heart  was  busy  with  adoring 
and  appropriating  the  God  who  was  thus  known.  The 
three  experiences  of  God  were  all  essential  to  the  new  life, 
and  all  equally  essential,  and  there  was  no  other  that  took 
rank  with  them.  So  they  stood  out  by  themselves.  But  in 
the  recognition  of  them  in  the  first  days  there  was  no  specula¬ 
tion,  and  no  suggestion  of  a  theory  of  the  hidden  Godhead. 
The  enumeration  of  them  only  told  what  God  was  to  those 
who  were  living  the  new  life.  It  was  all  practical,  experi¬ 
mental,  religious,  like  all  else  that  was  characteristic  of  the 
primitive  Christian  faith. 

Thus  the  gift  that  was  offered  by  Jesus  was  received  and 
put  to  use  in  the  early  Christian  experience — imperfectly  no 
doubt,  and  yet  in  vital  power.  Jesus  offered  God  in  life,  and 
in  life  he  was  received.  Christianity  was  first  an  experience, 
and  an  experience  of  God,  by  which,  since  God  was  both 


THE  SOURCES 


47 


Lord  and  Saviour,  all  human  living  was  transformed.  God 
was  the  sun  in  heaven  that  made  the  new  spiritual  day.  In 
course  of  time  the  sun  and  its  light  would  be  investigated ;  but 
what  made  the  brightness  of  the  day  was  the  shining  of  the 
sun,  not  the  investigation  or  its  results,  and  it  was  the  bright¬ 
ness  of  the  day  that  suggested  the  inquiry.  The  doctrine 
of  God  that  appears  within  the  New  Testament  is  chiefly  the 
perception  in  human  life  of  the  divine  Being  for  whose  fellow¬ 
ship  man  was  made.  The  perfect  Father,  revealed  by  Christ 
as  Saviour  from  sin,  known  in  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  governing  all  life  in  the  counsel  of  wise  love,  this  is  the 
God  in  whom  all  live  and  move  and  have  their  being,  and 
with  whom  his  children  who  are  reconciled  in  Christ  live  in 
filial  unity. 

(4)  The  Historical  Development 

The  conception  of  God  that  Jesus  made  alive  went  forth 
to  live  in  the  world  of  men,  and  how  inspiring  and  helpful 
it  was,  the  story  of  the  first  Christian  generations  shows. 
God  the  righteous  and  gracious  One,  the  sum  of  all  known 
good.  Father  and  Saviour  to  men — these  visions  of  the  eter¬ 
nal  reality  entered  into  life  to  remain  there  as  transforming 
forces.  However  imperfectly  it  has  been  apprehended,  Jesus^ 
own  conception  of  God  has  been  ever  since  in  the  world,  and 
its  presence  has  made  an  ever-widening  circle  of  light  and 
warmth. 

Since  the  gracious  gift  must  follow  the  fortunes  of  human 
affairs,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  has  had  its  development. 
An  unchanging  deposit  of  truth  is  an  impossibility.  All 
conceptions  that  go  out  among  men  are  thought  upon,  and 
thereby  altered.  Since  thought  is  eager  and  unresting,  no 
conclusion  reached  can  remain  a  conclusion  merely,  for  every 
conclusion  becomes  in  turn  a  premise,  helpful  in  reaching 
other  conclusions.  Moreover,  all  practical  and  religious  con¬ 
ceptions  go  forth  to  be  acted  upon,  and  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  acted  upon  reacts  upon  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  held.  Thus  both  in  thought  and  in  practice  the  Christian 


48 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


conception  of  God  was  destined  to  development.  It  neces¬ 
sarily  became  an  historical  doctrine,  living  and  growing  with 
human  life,  passing  through  the  vicissitudes  in  form  and 
substance  that  constitute  history  in  thought.  The  story  of 
this  development  is  not  now  to  be  rehearsed,  but  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  remind  ourselves  of  some  of  the  main  elements  that 
have  entered  into  the  process. 

The  Christian  doctrine  of  God  has  received  its  develop¬ 
ment  under  many  influences.  First  the  thought  of  God  that 
Jesus  offered  was  received  as  men  could  receive  it,  and  be¬ 
came  effective  in  the  great  experience  that  constituted  Chris¬ 
tianity.  In  the  process  it  became  blended  with  other  thoughts 
concerning  God,  inherited,  or  acquired  from  other  sources: 
it  was  never  alone.  In  the  resulting  combinations,  it  was 
subjected  to  the  various  intellectual  methods  of  successive 
ages,  combined  with  various  intellectual  conceptions,  and 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  many  kinds  of  religious  experience. 
It  was  affected  and  altered  in  various  ways  by  the  reaction 
upon  it  of  organization,  of  institutions,  and  of  religious  prac¬ 
tices.  Other  ideas  in  Theology  had  their  influence  upon  it, 
and  theological  controversy  modified  it  in  incalculable  ways. 
From  age  to  age  new  knowledge,  new  scientific  methods,  and 
new  interpretations  of  the  world  have  had  their  effect  upon  it. 
And  the  entire  movement  has  proceeded  in  a  moral  world, 
where  the  strength  and  weakness  of  human  character  could 
not  fail  to  be  influential  upon  the  quality  of  all  high  ideas. 
Plainly  these  unavoidable  influences,  so  various  and  so 
strong,  must  have  given  a  genuine  history  to  the  doctrine 
of  God  among  Christians.  A  doctrine  unalterable  there 
could  not  be,  but  there  has  been  a  developing  doctrine. 
Plainly  also  the  development  must  have  been  partly  normal 
and  partly  abnormal.  Some  of  the  contributing  influences 
have  been  helpful  and  some  harmful  to  a  true  knowledge  of 
God  as  Jesus  reveals  him,  but  none  of  them  could  be  escaped. 
Through  such  a  course  the  doctrine  was  compelled  to  pass, 
being  in  the  world.  The  seed  of  God  was  cast  into  the  human 


THE  SOURCES 


49 


soil,  and  met  such  fortunes  as  were  inevitable.  The  doctrine 
of  God  has  always  been  a  divine  light  in  the  world,  but  a 
light  dimmed  by  human  obscurities. 

A  little  more  must  be  said  of  the  process.  The  first 
Christians  were  Jews,  and  necessarily  took  the  idea  of  God 
that  their  Master  gave  them  into  union  with  such  conceptions 
of  him  as  they  already  possessed.  These  conceptions,  in¬ 
herited  and  acquired,  were  partly  spiritual  and  lofty,  and 
partly  legalistic  and  unspiritual.  Jesus  immensely  elevated 
the  Jewish  idea  of  God  for  his  disciples,  but  it  was  not  in 
human  nature  that  their  idea  should  at  once  become  perfect 
and  bear  perfect  fruit.  The  Christian  thought  of  God  soon 
passed  out  into  the  Gentile  world,  to  be  a  new  light  and  glory 
there.  But  it  entered  the  Gentile  world  through  Jewish 
minds,  and  in  Gentile  minds  it  fell  into  the  midst  of  concep¬ 
tions  far  inferior  to  the  Jewish;  and  anti-Christian  views  of 
God  could  not  fail  to  be  influential  in  the  thinking  of  Gentile 
Christians.  When  Christianity  outwardly  conquered  the 
Empire,  it  received  into  itself  a  vast  amount  of  slightly  altered 
paganism,  and  turned  to  the  long  and  perilous  work  of  as¬ 
similating  hostile  elements  that  were  found  upon  its  field. 
In  all  this  we  find  the  clear  presage  of  a  mixed  and  imperfect 
doctrine. 

\ 

Moreover,  according  to  Jesus  the  way  to  know  God  is  first 
and  chiefly  through  trust  and  love  and  the  experience  of  the 
loyal  life.  But  it  was  inevitable  that,  when  men  had  turned 
to  thinking  about  the  God  whom  they  loved  and  honoured, 
they  should  attach  excessive  importance  to  the  intellectual 
method  of  knowing  him,  and  esteem  a  deposit  of  doctrine 
above  a  germinant  life.  It  was  certain  too  that  a  church 
would  arise,  and  be  accorded  an  authority  in  interpreting 
truth  such  as  the  Master’s  method  would  give  to  no  one  what¬ 
ever,  and  that  the  church’s  conception  of  God  would  be 
regarded  as  the  Master’s  own.  It  was  inevitable  that  the 
Christian  ideas  should  be  subjected  to  the  metaphysical 
methods  of  thought  that  ancient  Greece  had  bequeathed  to  the 
early  centuries,  and  that  that  which  Jesus  put  forth  in  sim- 


50 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


plicity  should  be  analyzed  and  reconstructed  in  a  manner 
quite  unlike  that  in  which  the  new  faith  began.  It  was 
inevitable  that  there  should  thus  be  formed  a  Christian  mode 
of  thinking  that  was  not  altogether  Christian,  which  in  turn 
would  fashion  the  idea  of  God  somewhat  after  its  own  like¬ 
ness.  It  was  inevitable  that  theological  discussions  and 
theories  should  modify  the  idea  of  God,  and  that  forms  of 
doctrine  on  other  points,  once  accepted,  should  tend  to  bring 
the  conception  of  God  into  harmony  with  themselves.  It  was 
inevitable  that  the  intellectual  conception  of  God  should  be 
narrow  when  the  range  of  knowledge  was  narrow  and  claim 
new  largeness  when  knowledge  took  on  new  breadth,  and 
that  the  conservatism  which  attaches  to  sacred  things  should 
often  resist  the  broadening  of  the  thought,  and  bring  on  con¬ 
troversy  when  worthier  conceptions  were  seeking  a  welcome. 
It  was  inevitable  that  the  question  whether  the  doctrine  of 
God  could  live  with  new  knowledge  should  be  recurring  from 
time  to  time,  that  needless  modifications  should  be  proposed 
by  progressive  thought,  and  that  cautious  faith  should  insist 
upon  keeping  the  doctrine  too  small  for  the  expanding  uni¬ 
verse.  These  are  not  risks  and  perils  of  some  particular 
time :  they  belong  in  various  forms  to  all  Christian  ages. 

These  are  the  resistances:  the  persistent  and  positive 
force  has  been  the  Christian  experience,  which  has  never 
become  extinct,  and  has  always,  in  spite  of  all  defects,  tended 
to  be  protective  of  the  true  thought  of  God.  The  clear  and 
strong  doctrine  of  Jesus  has  lived  on  and  done  its  work  of 
blessing.  Experience  of  God  as  Father  to  the  soul  and  as 
Saviour  in  Christ  has  always  been  alive,  imperfect  but  genuine. 
The  gift  of  sincerity  and  Christian  intention  in  the  making  of 
doctrine  has  never  been  absent.  Much  that  became  harm¬ 
ful  by  outliving  its  day  was  wholesome  and  helpful  in  its 
season.  Much  that  may  seem  to  us  unworthy  of  the  faith, 
and  even  false  to  it,  was  in  its  time  a  real  expression  of  the 
faith.  But  the  main  point  is  that  Jesus’  own  representation 
of  God,  as  all-good  and  worthy  of  all  trust  and  obedience, 
has  never  passed  out  of  sight  or  lost  its  power.  The  defini- 


THE  SOURCES 


51 


tion  of  what  is  good  has  been  faulty,  and  misconceptions  of  the 
divine  goodness,  grace  and  authority  have  been  both  per¬ 
plexing  and  misleading;  yet  the  conception  of  divine  good¬ 
ness,  worthy  of  all  loyalty  and  confidence,  has  been  the  wax¬ 
ing  light  through  the  Christian  period — waxing  unevenly,  yet 
brightening  toward  the  perfect  day.  This  is  the  glory  of  the 
Christian  doctrine,  and  it  is  the  good  side  of  the  errors  and 
mis  judgments  of  God  in  the  Christian  history  that  they  have 
generally  been  errors  and  mis  judgments  concerning  this 
beneficent  truth.  Goodness,  holiness,  love,  have  been  mis¬ 
conceived,  saviourhood  has  been  misinterpreted,  and  the 
beauty  and  the  moral  claim  have  often  been  misunderstood 
or  misapplied.  But  the  perfect  goodness  of  God  has  been 
steadily  believed  and  gloried  in :  though  known  so  imperfectly, 
it  has  not  been  unknown,  or  unprized.  This  high  conception 
has  held  its  way  through  history,  now  blending  with  one  kind 
of  thought  and  knowledge  and  now  with  another,  shadowed 
now  by  this  defect  and  now  by  that,  adjusted  now  well  and 
now  ill  with  other  truth,  but  never  ignored  or  omitted.  As 
ages  passed  it  has  entered  as  a  living  force  into  the  thought  of 
each  successive  time,  and  learned,  imperfectly  yet  really,  to 
live  with  all  that  is  vital  in  human  experience.  The  doctrine 
of  the  all-good  God  has  changed  from  age  to  age  as  the  idea 
of  the  good  has  changed,  but  it  has  remained  alive,  and 
acted  as  a  moral  power.  The  doctrine  of  the  good  God  in 
vital  relations  with  men,  the  Father  who  counts  them  his 
own,  the  Saviour  who  seeks  their  welfare,  the  Lord  who 
governs  them  in  righteousness  and  wisdom — this  doctrine  has 
utilized  and  outlived  many  inadequate  interpretations, 
metaphysical  and  practical,  and  come  down  to  our  day  bear¬ 
ing  the  essential  moral  quality  which  it  bore  at  first. 

This  brief  account  of  the  historical  development  intro¬ 
duces  the  question  in  what  sense  and  degree  this  development 
should  serve  as  a  source  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  in 
the  present  day. 

Evidently  not  as  providing  at  some  point  of  the  course  a 


52 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


sufficient  and  final  statement.  What  we  have  seen  of  the 
process  is  sufficient  evidence  of  this.  Finality  has  never  been 
reached,  nor,  in  conceptions  of  God,  is  it  attainable.  What  is 
man,  at  any  given  hour  of  history,  that  he  should  know  all 
that  is  to  be  known  of  God  ?  and  what  is  any  generation,  that 
it  should  formulate  a  final  doctrine  concerning  him  ?  No  age 
is  bound  by  the  conclusions  of  another,  or  is  at  liberty  to  take 
them  as  final  and  exclusive  of  further  thought.  Each  genera¬ 
tion  must  know  God  for  itself  as  it  may,  in  the  light  of  its 
own  knowledge  of  other  realities  and  of  the  cumulative  experi¬ 
ence  of  mankind.  The  truth  that  has  been  embodied  in 
former  expressions  must  be  considered  again  in  view  of  ~ 
larger  knowledge,  and  errors  and  inadequacies  must  be  elimi¬ 
nated,  if  that  may  be.  The  doctrine  of  each  present  day 
must  take  forms  that  are  alive  for  the  men  of  that  day,  and 
must  be  in  a  true  sense  their  own  work,  wrought  out  of  the 
materials  that  revelation  and  experience  provide.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  as  w^e  do  not  expect  now  to  frame  a  doctrine  that  will 
need  no  revision  hereafter,  so  we  do  not  receive  as  final  any 
statement  of  the  past. 

We  believe  in  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit  upon  the 
Christian  people :  it  might  be  thought  therefore  that  we  must 
regard  the  latest  form  of  thought  concerning  God  as  God’s 
own  immediate  testimony  to  himself,  to  be  received  without 
question  as  sufficient  to  the  present  time.  But  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  Christian  people  is  a  guid¬ 
ance  upon  people  who  think  for  themselves  and  are  daily 
learning  through  experience.  It  does  not  offer  a  finished 
product,  but  always  brings  something  to  be  wrought  upon 
with  all  diligence  by  the  best  powers  of  man.  The  historical 
process  brings  to  our  generation  material  for  analytical  and 
reconstructive  labour.  Its  contribution  of  doctrine  concern¬ 
ing  God  must  be  criticised  in  Christian  light,  that  we  may 
discover  the  Christian  element  in  Christian  doctrine,  and  be 
prepared  to  do  it  honour.  In  the  records  of  the  past  we  find 
much  that  has  done  honourable  service  and  lived  out  its  day, 
and  much  that  might  better  have  been  left  out  of  Christian 


THE  SOURCES 


53 


thought,  while  as  the  persisting  and  dominant  force  we  find 
that  vital  experience  of  God  of  which  Christ  is  the  inspiration. 
Out  of  this  mixed  material  bequeathed  to  us  we  have  to 
select  what  is  abidingly  Christian,  and  bring  it  into  combina¬ 
tion  with  the  truest  and  best  that  is  known  to-day,  and  set 
the  Christian  thought  of  God  as  a  living  thought  among  the 
other  thoughts  of  the  time. 

That  is  to  say,  the  present  doctrine  of  God  must  repre¬ 
sent  the  present  stage  in  the  long  historical  development.  It 
must  be  the  next  doctrine  after  that  of  yesterday,  and  the 
prelude  to  a  better  doctrine  to-morrow.  It  is  to-day’s  form 
of  the  one  persisting  Christian  truth.  It  is  something  to 
obtain  as  clear  a  view  as  this  of  our  task  when  we  undertake 
to  set  forth  the  doctrine  for  to-day. 

In  this  light  the  historical  development  becomes  to  us  a 
source  of  doctrine,  by  bringing  to  us  the  permanent  and  the 
temporary  elements  in  thought  concerning  God,  that  we  may 
disentangle  them  and  place  them  respectively  where  they 
belong.  We  must  follow  the  exacting  method  that  is  indi¬ 
cated  at  the  beginning  of  our  study.  The  Christian  doctrine 
for  to-day  must  be  found  by  learning  as  truly  as  we  may  the 
central  conception  of  God  as  Jesus  gave  it,  by  observing  what 
forms,  worthy  and  unworthy,  it  has  received  in  its  historical 
development,  by  separating  it  as  far  as  possible  from  contra¬ 
dictory  conceptions  that  have  become  blended  with  it,  and 
by  giving  it  form  that  corresponds  in  some  good  degree  to  the 
living  thought  and  experience  of  our  time. 

Like  the  original  voice  of  Jesus,  the  historical  development 
bears  witness  that  the  central  element  in  the  doctrine  of  God 
is  the  moral  and  religious.  That  is  the  persisting  element. 
Not  the  divine  power  but  the  divine  character  is  at  the  front. 
Not  the  philosophy  of  his  nature  but  the  love  and  right¬ 
eousness  of  God  is  the  primary  fact  in  the  doctrine.  When 
we  question  the  long  development  as  a  source  of  doctrine, 
this  is  its  reply,  that  for  to-day  as  for  all  the  yesterdays  there 
must  be  an  ethical  and  religious  doctrine  of  God.  This 
Jesus  gave,  and  this  the  ages  have  vindicated  as  the  necessary 


54 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


doctrine.  God  in  relations  with  men,  touching  them  with 
a  moral  claim  and  redemptive  helpfulness,  covering  all  their 
life  with  his  requirement  and  embracing  it  all  in  his  paternal 
love — this  is  the  vision  that  Jesus  opened,  and  all  the  darkness 
of  intervening  ages  has  not  hidden  it. 

History  contributes  also  its  mandate,  bidding  us  find  for 
our  doctrine  of  God  its  place  among  the  thoughts  that  are 
now  vital  among  men.  By  all  its  successes  and  all  its  failures 
it  calls  us  to  this  endeavour.  It  warns  us  to  inquire  whether 
our  conception  of  God  can  live  with  the  truth  that  is  known 
now.  The  true  doctrine  of  God  certainly  can  live  with  all 
other  truth :  can  ours  ?  Yet  it  is  not  a  question  of  comparing 
two  philosophies  of  God,  one  derived  from  Christian  thought 
and  another  grounded  elsewhere.  The  question  is  whether 
the  ethical  and  religious  doctrine  of  God  which  Jesus 
gave  us  is  compatible  with  the  knowledge  of  existence  that 
we  now  possess.  Large  conceptions  of  general  existence 
have  greatly  changed  since  Jesus  spoke.  Has  the  change 
rendered  his  moral  conception  of  God  untenable?  The 
change  is  indeed  great.  The  world  has  expanded  until  it 
has  become  the  universe.  The  sum  of  existence,  unimagi¬ 
nably  vast,  is  seen  to  be  held  together  in  a  manner  unsuspected 
when  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  was  first  conceived.  The 
evolutionary  method  is  recognized  as  universal,  and  as  pro¬ 
viding  to  all  existence  a  unity  not  only  of  method  but  also  of 
interdependence  and  solidarity.  There  is  a  single  whole, 
moved  by  forces  that  appear  to  dwell  within;  and  man,  long 
regarded  as  separate  and  supreme,  now  stands  vitally  con¬ 
nected  with  the  whole  mass  of  being.  He  is  indeed  invested 
with  the  unique  dignity  of  a  personal  spirit,  and  yet  he  seems 
only  an  infinitesimal  element  in  the  immeasurable  whole. 
In  a  world  thus  conceived,  new  questions  arise.  In  such  an 
order  of  nature,  what  place  exists  for  God?  Does  the  ob¬ 
served  character  of  the  universe  lead  us  to  believe  that  God 
is  personal  ?  Is  the  ethical  element  in  life  so  prominent  and 
dominant  as  to  warrant  belief  in  a  God  whose  chief  quality 
is  moral  character  ?  Is  it  credible  that  man  is  dear  to  a  power 


THE  SOURCES 


55 


above  him,  and  the  object  of  a  faithful  care  that  can  be  called 
a  providence  ?  May  our  life  still  be  dignified,  consoled  and 
glorified  by  association  with  such  a  Being  as  Jesus  taught  us 
to  call  ‘‘  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven  ”  ?  In  a  word,  is  there 
a  Father,  a  God  related  to  us  men  as  the  God  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  declared  to  be? 

The  Christian  doctrine  answers  these  questions  in  the 
affirmative.  Many  judgments  that  have  entered  into  it  in 
the  past  may  drop  away,  and  much  that  has  seemed  essential 
to  it  may  be  dispensed  with,  but  confidence  in  the  Eternal 
Goodness  remains  as  its  very  heart.  The  Christian  doctrine 
has  simply  moved  on  into  another  age  with  whose  thoughts 
it  has  to  live.  It  is  a  mistake  to  regard  its  task  in  the  light 
of  a  conflict,  and  suppose  that  it  is  called  to  conquer  and 
silence  the  thought  that  is  characteristic  of  the  age.  It  has 
rather  to  claim  its  place  and  win  its  welcome  with  the  thought 
of  the  new  period.  Since  the  doctrine  is  true  at  heart,  it  can 
live  in  the  modern  world.  It  can  enter  into  union  with  the 
truths  that  are  found  in  the  evolutionary  view  of  the  universe. 
It  can  legitimately  proclaim  its  ethical  God  and  Saviour  in 
the  world  of  modern  knowledge.  And  the  form  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  for  our  day  is  the  form  that  it  takes  when  it  has 
entered  into  union  with  the  knowledge  of  our  day.  The 
present  Christian  doctrine  is  the  doctrine  that  we  owe  to 
Jesus,  preserved  till  now  by  passing  through  forms  that 
suited  times  now  past,  now  wrought  into  unity  with  modern 
knowledge,  and  applied  to  life  as  an  undying  moral  and 
religious  doctrine. 

It  is  still  too  early  for  the  Christian  thought  to  have  estab¬ 
lished  its  place  fully  in  fellowship  with  the  new  thought  of  the 
time.  The  question  of  compatibility  has  had  first  to  be 
wrought  out,  and  for  a  time  there  has  been  unavoidably  an 
appearance  of  conflict.  But  it  will  be  plain  by  and  by  that 
the  conflict  was  only  in  appearance,  and  that  in  this  age,  as 
in  every  other,  there  is  room  for  a  free  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
goodness. 


I.  GOD 


1.  CHARACTER 

When  we  have  passed  beyond  the  study  of  our  sources  and 
come  to  the  doctrine  of  God  itself,  it  may  seem  that  to  estab¬ 
lish  the  existence  of  God  ought  to  be  our  first  endeavour. 
This  has  been  the  common  practice,  and  perhaps  the  custom 
may  seem  as  necessary  as  it  is  venerable.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
quite  contrary  to  the  Christian  idea.  The  Christian  doctrine 
of  God  does  not  begin  with  proof,  it  begins  with  the  announce¬ 
ment  that  is  made  by  Christian  faith  in  pursuance  of  the 
Christian  revelation.  Faith  does  not  set  out  to  find  an  un¬ 
known  God,  or  to  assure  itself  that  God  exists:  it  has  heard 
his  voice,  and  begins  in  confidence  in  his  reality.  It  assumes 
the  existence  of  God  as  its  first  certainty,  and  then  proceeds 
to  learn  about  him  all  that  can  be  learned.  The  Christian 
doctrine  is  reached  by  unfolding  the  conception  of  God  that 
is  assumed  as  true  by  the  Christian  revelation  and  experience. 
When  the  doctrine  has  been  presented,  and  it  is  apparent  what 
manner  of  God  the  Christian  faith  is  assuming  to  exist,  it 
will  be  time  to  inquire  how  far  the  doctrine  thus  obtained  is 
commended  as  true  by  fitting  in  with  other  truth  that  we  have 
reason  for  holding.  Proof  comes  at  the  end,  not  at  the  be¬ 
ginning,  and  bears  the  nature  of  confirmation,  not  of  dis¬ 
covery.  There  may  be  other  ways  of  approaching  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God,  but  the  Christian  way  is  the  way  of  recognition 
rather  than  of  demonstration.  Not  that  God  is,  but  what 
God  is,  is  the  first  point  in  the  Christian  doctrine.  This 
method  is  sometimes  condemned  as  unscientific  and  mis¬ 
leading,  but  it  is  neither,  and  it  will  be  vindicated  in  the 
end  as  best  suited  to  the  subject  and  most  helpful  to  sound 
knowledge. 


56 


CHARACTER 


57 


Beginning,  therefore,  with  the  assumption  of  God,  the 
Christian  doctrine  must  tell  what  manner  of  God  he  is 
assumed  to  be.  In  approaching  this  task  we  are  clearly  and 
safely  guided  by  the  nature  of  religion,  and  especially  of  the 
Christian  faith.  There  is  only  one  region  in  which  our  work 
can  rightly  begin,  and  that  is  the  region  of  character.  The 
ancient  conception  of  God  which  Jesus  raised  to  full  glory 
was  an  ethical  conception.  The  experience  in  Christ  by 
which  God  has  become  vitally  known  to  the  Christian  people 
is  an  ethical  experience,  expressive  of  the  character  of  God 
and  realized  in  the  character  of  men.  The  Christian  salva¬ 
tion  is  God’s  characteristic  work,  and  the  Christian  doctrine 
is  primarily  an  account  of  him  as  a  moral  Being,  in  char¬ 
acteristic  relations  with  other  moral  beings.  In  other  words, 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  is  first  of  all  a  doctrine  of  the 
divine  character.  Here  falls  the  emphasis.  It  was  so  in 
Jesus’  own  revelation,  and  in  the  experience  that  wrought 
the  marvels  of  transformation  in  the  early  Christian  days. 
Here  the  strength  of  the  Christian  doctrine  has  always  re¬ 
sided,  and  must  always  dwell. 

This  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  Christianity  does  not  ap¬ 
proach  God  first  as  Creator,  or  as  the  great  First  Cause,  or  as 
the  Almighty.  Theological  inferences  from  the  facts  revealed 
by  natural  science  do  not  stand  at  the  front.  No  form  of  the 
doctrine  of  power  is  the  primary  element.  Metaphysical 
considerations  do  not  come  first.  If  character  is  not  made 
primary  in  the  doctrine  of  God,  the  resulting  life  will  be 
lacking  in  the  Christian  quality.  If  merely  philosophical 
conceptions  of  God,  or  conceptions  borrowed  from  the 
material  universe,  had  been  the  starting-point,  the  Christian 
point  of  view  would  never  have  been  reached.  If  causation, 
or  control,  or  the  reign  of  law,  be  made  the  ruling  principle  in 
doctrine-forming,  and  character  comes  in  only  as  a  kind  of 
afterthought,  the  resulting  doctrine  will  be  comparatively 
void  of  power.  The  Christian  thought  is  loyal  to  the  true 
light  only  when  it  consistently  sets  character  at  the  front,  and 
exhibits  men  as  face  to  face  with  God  in  moral  relations. 


58 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


So  with  Moses  and  the  prophets  and  with  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  we  seek  to  set  God  forth  in  the  character  that  he  bears. 

The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  character  of  God  is  as  simple 
as  it  is  bold  and  comprehensive.  It  affirms  that  when  God 
is  seen  in  the  pure  Christian  light,  he  is  seen  as  he  really  is. 
In  Christ,  it  says,  and  through  his  influence,  God  is  truly 
manifested.  He  always  has  been,  is,  and  always  will  be  such 
a  Being  as  we  shall  know  when  we  have  rightly  discerned  the 
Being  of  whom  Jesus  is  the  revealer.  It  is  not  meant,  of 
course,  that  all  that  has  been  taught  concerning  God  under 
the  Christian  name  is  true,  or  that  any  adequate  statement  of 
his  nature  has  ever  been  made.  It  is  meant  that  when  the 
entire  conception  of  God  has  been  unified,  and  harmonized 
with  the  thought  of  Jesus  as  its  centre  and  keynote,  God  will 
be  known  as  he  is.  The  character  that  Jesus  opened  to  our 
knowledge  is  the  real  character,  not  to  be  transformed  for  us 
by  any  future  discoveries  or  experience.  It  is  no  temporary 
or  incidental  character,  borne  only  in  certain  relations  or 
revealed  only  for  certain  purposes,  but  is  the  same  from  ever¬ 
lasting  to  everlasting,  and  the  same  in  his  relations  with  all 
beings,  because  the  same  in  himself  the  eternal  God.  Though 
he  is  variously  manifested  and  known,  he  changes  never, 
neither  adopting  nor  abandoning  any  moral  trait.  Jesus 
showed  him  as  he  essentially  and  eternally  is,  so  that  one  who 
has  learned  to  love  the  God  whom  he  made  known  will  never 
need  to  alter  the  quality  of  his  affection  and  adapt  himself  to  a 
different  God.  This  truth,  that  God  in  Christ  is  the  true 
and  only  God,  has  never  held  its  rightful  position  in  Christian 
thought,  but  it  has  never  ceased  to  influence  the  Christian 
heart,  and  it  is  the  theme  upon  which  various  doctrines  in 
Christian  history  have  been  imperfect  variations.  It  is  the 
central  Christian  verity,  and  it  is  the  growing  Christian 
doctrine. 

It  might  seem  that  it  must  be  a  boundless  and  hopeless  task 
to  seek  clear  conceptions  of  the  character  of  God.  We 
readily  assume  that  whatever  is  great  must  needs  be  compli- 


PERSONALITY 


59 


cated,  intricate,  and  essentially  difficult.  But  it  is  good  to 
remember  that  the  discernment  of  character  is  one  of  the 
most  familiar  of  human  activities,  and  one  in  which  we  may 
most  reasonably  hope  to  be  successful.  It  is  well  for  us  that 
our  labour  lies  in  this  field.  Ethical  judgments  are  far  easier 
than  philosophical  solutions.  Moreover,  we  shall  be  able 
to  correct  our  suspicion  that  the  divine  character  must  be 
intricate  and  obscure.  The  great  is  the  simple.  In  its 
operation  there  are  mysteries  that  are  far  beyond  our  solving, 
but  in  itself  the  character  of  God  is  simple  and  intelligible. 
We  are  accustomed  to  complexity  in  the  derived  and  im¬ 
perfect,  but  here  we  shall  be  brought  to  gaze  upon  the  sim¬ 
plicity  that  belongs  to  the  original  and  eternal. 

2.  PERSONALITY 

Before  proceeding  to  unfold  the  doctrine  of  the  character 
of  God,  it  is  necessary  to  dwell  for  a  little  upon  that  element 
of  Personality  which  the  Christian  experience  and  doctrine 
so  evidently  imply. 

The  idea  of  divine  personality  is  as  old  as  religion.  In  the 
early  days  of  unsophisticated  activity,  prayer  came  into 
practice  because  there  was  no  doubt  that  there  was  some  one 
there  to  be  spoken  to  and  to  respond.  Some  one  was  believed 
in  who  could  hear  the  confession  of  sins  and  forgive  them,  who 
could  receive  thanksgiving  and  grant  new  gifts,  and  who 
could  keep  that  which  was  committed  to  his  care.  Man  has 
always  regarded  the  divine  as  similar  to  the  human,  and 
pictured  the  gods  as  personal  like  himself.  What  was  true 
in  early  ages  has  been  true  in  general  ever  since.  Where 
divine  personality  has  been  ignored  in  theory  through  pan¬ 
theistic  thought,  it  has  been  restored  in  practice  by  the  in¬ 
cursion  of  polytheism.  The  conviction  of  divine  personality 
is  no  part  of  the  childishness  of  mankind.  Man  has  often 
been  scoffed  at  for  thinking  that  God  is  like  himself,  but 
instead  of  folly  this  is  a  beginning  of  wisdom.  Anthropo¬ 
morphism  has  taken  many  false  and  misleading  forms,  but 


60 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  truth  that  man  bears  the  likeness  of  God  and  God  the 
likeness  of  man  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  strong  religion. 

The  Christian  doctrine  implies  personality  in  God  in  the 
same  manner  with  all  the  religions.  It  deals  with  the  common 
experiences  of  dependence,  trust  and  communion  with  God, 
and  assumes  that  they  are  not  false  and  delusive  experiences. 
If  they  are  not,  God  must  be  able  to  meet  the  praying  soul 
with  an  intelligent  and  active  response.  But  the  Christian 
doctrine  lays  an  emphasis  of  its  own  upon  the  divine  personal¬ 
ity,  for  it  insists  beyond  all  others  upon  the  divine  character, 
and  character  inheres  in  personality,  and  in  nothing  else. 
All  doctrine  of  an  ethical  God  is  doctrine  of  a  personal  God; 
and  one  may  almost  say  that  the  whole  of  Christianity  con¬ 
sists  in  the  unfolding  of  God’s  character.  Since  character 
is  the  vital  point  in  the  Christian  conception  of  God,  God  is 
necessarily  conceived  as  capable  of  possessing  character; 
and  the  capacity  for  character  is  identical  with  what  we  know 
as  personality. 

When  we  turn  to  our  Christian  documents,  their  testimony 
to  the  personality  of  God  is  perfectly  informal  and  over¬ 
whelmingly  abundant.  In  the  Old  Testament,  as  we  have 
seen,  God  speaks  as  I,  is  addressed  as  Thou,  and  is  re¬ 
ferred  to  as  He.  His  personality  is  taken  for  granted,  after 
the  manner  of  the  ages  in  which  it  was  unquestioned. 
Jesus  does  not  proclaim  the  personality  of  God,  but  he 
assumes  it  always,  for  he  is  always  ascribing  to  God  quali¬ 
ties  that  could  not  possibly  inhere  in  anything  but  per¬ 
sonal  being.  The  Christian  doctrine  has  always  followed 
the  Master  in  attributing  to  God  not  only  the  name  but 
the  powers  and  actions  of  a  personal  Spirit.  In  the  times 
of  the  Bible  the  question  of  divine  personality  did  not 
arise,  for  the  metaphysical  definition  of  personality  did  not  yet 
exist,  though  the  fact  was  acted  upon  as  consistently  as  in 
any  age;  but  if  it  had  arisen  we  can  see  how  prophets  and 
apostles  would  have  answered  it.  That  God  is  holy,  or  that 
God  is  love,  would  have  been  sufficient  evidence  that  God 
may  be  spoken  of  as  He  and  addressed  as  Thou.  The 


PERSONALITY 


61 


reasoning  is  sound.  Character  implies  personality:  no  per¬ 
sonality,  no  character.  Morality  inheres  in  nothing  else: 
right  and  wrong  are  possible  only  to  persons.  So  common 
knowledge  testifies.  In  forming  our  Christian  doctrine  of 
God  we  do  not  so  much  attribute  character  to  a  Person — 
though  we  might  do  this — as  we  affirm  personality  as  the 
only  possible  basis  for  character. 

Now  and  then  some  one  rises  to  assert  the  existence  of  a 
moral  order  without  a  personal  God.  Righteousness  is 
affirmed  to  be  characteristic  of  the  natural  order  and  move¬ 
ment  of  the  world,  though  no  mind  made  it  so.  Somehow 
universal  nature  brings  forth  justice,  and  men  may  expect 
right  to  be  done  and  wrong  to  be  punished  by  the  uncon¬ 
scious  order  of  the  world.  Sometimes  benevolence  is  attrib¬ 
uted  to  the  same  mindless  movement,  and  sometimes 
malevolence  and  cruelty  are  said  to  be  its  traits.  But  it  is 
unsatisfactory  to  attribute  genuine  moral  qualities,  vffiether 
good  or  bad,  to  a  mindless  order.  The  only  soil  in  which  they 
can  grow  has  no  existence  there.  Our  acquaintance  with  the 
habits  and  habitat  of  right  and  wrong  is  too  much  for  such  a 
doctrine,  and  we  are  not  surprised  that  it  does  not  attain  to  a 
position  of  lasting  power.  The  only  tenable  interpretation 
of  character  is  that  which  grounds  it  in  the  nature  and 
relations  of  a  personal  being.  If  character  be  attributed  to 
God,  he  must  be  a  being  who  is  capable  of  having  it,  and  such 
a  being  has  the  powers  that  make  up  personality.  The 
thought  has  its  difficulties,  but  the  necessity  of  personality  as 
the  substratum  of  character  is  inexorable,  and  the  difficulties 
must  be  met  in  loyalty  to  this  requirement. 

What  do  we  mean  when  we  speak  of  God  as  personal? 
Our  answer  to  this  question  must  be  incomplete,  but  need 
not  be  obscure  or  doubtful,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  we 
should  shrink  from  the  definition  that  we  can  obtain.  We 
know  on  what  basis  of  knowledge  personality  must  be  defined. 
Personality  is  a  human  gift,  known  to  us  only  in  ourselves 
and  other  men.  We  know  that  there  may  be  higher  person- 


62 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


alities  than  the  human,  but  we  are  not  acquainted  with  them. 
We  see  suggestions  of  personality  in  animals  below  us,  but 
they  are  not  so  clear  and  full  as  to  provide  us  with  personal 
companionship  in  that  region.  We  human  beings  are  per¬ 
sons,  and  from  ourselves  alone  can  we  define  what  we  indicate 
by  that  name.  If  we  say  that  God  is  personal,  we  must  mean 
that  in  certain  respects  God  is  like  ourselves.  We  may  own 
that  in  these  very  respects  there  may  be  important  differences 
between  God  and  us,  and  yet  we  must  mean  that  the  likeness 
in  constitution  is  genuine,  and  consists  in  something  that  is 
essential  in  the  nature  of  both.  From  this  assertion  we  need 
not  shrink,  and  should  not  be  repelled  by  any  charges  of 
folly.  The  doctrine  that  God  is  like  man  is  the  most  ancient 
of  all  doctrines  of  God,  and  is  destined  to  survive,  in  some 
form,  as  long  as  a  doctrine  of  God  is  held.  It  has  not  to  be 
accounted  for:  the  only  question  is,  in  what  sense  is  it  true? 
What  likeness  between  God  and  men  is  affirmed  when  it  is 
said  that  God  is  personal  ?  What  facts  justify  us  in  speaking 
thus  of  God? 

It  is  necessary  to  give  some  account  of  personality  as  it 
exists  in  ourselves;  and  this  we  will  do  not  by  describing  it 
as  it  may  appear  at  some  given  moment,  but  by  tracing  its 
genesis  and  growth. 

A  human  being  is  born  of  parents  and  of  a  race,  and 
received  into  a  social  group  and  order,  where  he  is  acted  upon 
by  those  who  are  farther  along  than  himself  in  the  movement 
toward  personality.  He  himself  is  not  a  person  at  first,  but 
is  to  become  one.  If  he  were  not  acted  upon  by  others  he 
could  never  become  a  person:  if  he  were  not  spoken  to  he 
could  never  speak :  if  he  were  not  called  out  he  would  never 
be  developed.  All  human  life  is  social,  and  personality  has 
no  existence  except  in  relations  with  others.  Thus  person¬ 
ality  implies  society,  and  is  absolutely  dependent  upon  it. 
A  person  is  a  member  of  society,  and  this  fact  of  social  relat¬ 
edness  is  a  true  and  abiding  element  in  his  personality.  As 
he  has  received  from  others,  so  he  stands  always  bound  to 


PERSONALITY 


63 


others  by  indestructible  ties,  and  lives  his  life  by  social  giving 
and  receiving. 

When  once  the  human  being  has  begun  to  exist,  life  goes 
on,  by  combination  of  mysterious  inward  impulse  and  out¬ 
ward  influence,  and  trains  the  incipient  person  at  once  to 
self-consciousness  and  self-determination.  Probably  these 
two  possessions  come  by  simultaneous  development.  Life 
trains  the  growing  person  to  consciousness  of  himself,  and  to 
determination  of  his  own  conduct.  He  comes  to  a  conscious¬ 
ness  that  is  more  than  a  mere  being  aware  of  surrounding 
things :  it  is  an  inner  sense  of  being  himself,  with  continuous 
identity  and  significance.  And  he  comes  to  a  self-direction 
which  is  first  instinctive  but  gradually  becomes  a  rational  self¬ 
guidance  :  his  action  is  his  own  even  though  in  limited  degree, 
being  expressive  of  himself  and  by  himself  directed.  All  the 
activities  of  life  tend  to  the  formation  of  a  being  who  is  thus 
self-conscious  and  self-determining  in  the  relations  in  which 
he  stands;  and  in  proportion  as  these  powers  are  developed 
the  human  being  advances  in  personality,  or  becomes  a 
person.  A  person  is  a  being  in  relation  with  others,  who  is 
aware  of  himself  and  has  power  of  directing  his  own  action. 
Evidently  such  personality  is  an  ever-growing  thing,  never 
complete,  always  becoming.  Self-consciousness  is  never  per¬ 
fect,  for  a  human  being  is  never  conscious  of  all  that  is  in  him. 
Self-direction  is  always  limited,  for  there  is  much  in  life  that 
a  person  does  not  determine  for  himself;  and  the  relations 
of  a  human  being  are  not  all  determined  by  himself,  are  not 
fully  known  to  him,  and  can  never  be  utilized  by  him  to  the 
full  possible  extent. 

From  this  view  of  human  personality  we  turn  to  look  upon 
personality  in  God.  Here  at  once  we  meet  this  difference, 
that  in  God  we  do  not  trace  the  genesis  of  personality.  Not 
in  relations  do  we  find  it  originating,  or  on  them  depending. 
We  can  say  that  outside  of  relations  man  would  not  have 
become  a  person,  but  we  cannot  say  the  same  of  God.  Of 
God  outside  of  relations  we  have  no  knowledge;  and  cer¬ 
tainly  what  we  know  of  him  within  relations  is  not  of  a  kind 


64 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


to  make  us  conjecture  that  he  depends  upon  them  for  his 
personality.  But  of  God  within  relations  we  may  speak. 
In  his  case,  as  in  ours,  relations  bring  to  expression  those 
powers  of  self-consciousness  and  self-determination  which 
make  up  personality.  The  Christian  doctrine  uses  its  terms 
in  a  sense  that  accords  with  our  experience  and  knowledge 
when  it  says  that  God  is  a  personal  being.  By  this  is  meant, 
that  God  is  One  who  knows  himself,  or  is  conscious  of  him¬ 
self  and  the  significance  of  his  being;  that  he  is  One  who 
directs  his  own  action,  making  it  expressive  of  the  self  of 
which  he  is  conscious;  and  that  he  is  related  to  other  be¬ 
ing,  and  other  being  is  related  to  him.  A  conscious,  in¬ 
telligent,  active,  related  being — this  is  a  person,  and  such  is 
God.  This  is  the  Christian  conception. 

It  is  indeed  the  Christian  conception.  It  is  quite  super¬ 
fluous  to  show  that  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
thus  a  self-conscious  being  who  directs  his  own  action,  that 
he  knows,  loves  and  acts,  that  he  exercises  the  powers  of  a 
rational  mind  and  does  the  work  of  a  reasonable  will,  in  rela¬ 
tions  with  other  existence.  Wliat  this  modern  language 
expresses  is  all  implied  in  what  Jesus  says  more  simply  of 
God.  All  Christian  thought  accepts  him  as  such  a  Being, 
and  all  Christian  life  proceeds  as  if  such  he  were.  “Pray  to 
thy  Father,’^  said  Jesus.  The  Christian  faith  is  faith  of  one 
personal  being  in  another.  With  a  conscious  mind  the 
worshipper  stands  face  to  face. 

Thus  reaching  the  idea  of  personality  in  God  from  that  of 
personality  in  men,  we  must  observe  what  changes  come  to 
the  idea  in  this  transference.  Of  course  we  drop  all  such 
anthropomorphisms  as  relate  to  bodily  form  and  aspect, 
locality  and  local  environment.  No  longer  do  we  picture  or 
locate  God.  If  we  quote  the  ancient  pictorial  language,  we 
understand  that  it  is  figurative.  What  is  more  important, 
we  drop  all  idea  of  incompleteness  and  limitation.  We  can¬ 
not  imagine  the  perfect,  but  we  can  to  some  degree  imagine 
the  annihilation  of  imperfections  of  which  we  are  aware  in 
ourselves.  We  have  an  incomplete  self-consciousness,  but 


PERSONALITY 


65 


in  God  we  think  of  it  as  complete,  or  consciousness  of  all  that 
the  self-knowing  One  contains.  We  know  self-direction, 
applied  to  parts  of  our  action,  but  in  God  we  think  of  it  as 
unhindered  and  perfect,  governing  all  that  he  does.  We 
know  relations  with  other  beings,  which  in  our  case  are  partly 
chosen  and  partly  accepted,  whether  we  will  or  not,  but  in 
God  we  think  of  them  as  appointed  by  himself,  entered 
and  maintained  in  full  independence.  In  God  the  elements 
of  personality  are  carried  up  to  perfection.  In  tracing  the 
process  we  have  transcended  the  range  of  humanity,  but  not 
the  nature  of  personality.  The  God  whom  we  discover  is  a 
personal  being  in  the  same  sense  with  us,  notwithstanding  that 
his  personality  rises  above  ours  by  the  height  of  perfection. 

Sometimes  we  are  led  to  fear  that  we  must  lose  the  fact  of 
personality  when  we  rise  to  the  height  of  God.  We  are  com¬ 
pelled  to  define  personality  in  terms  of  our  own  because  we 
know  no  other,  and  in  such  conditions  it  is  easy  to  assume 
that  in  us  the  type  or  ideal  of  personality  must  reside.  When 
we  look  at  ourselves,  personality  seems  very  closely  sur¬ 
rounded  by  confining  lines.  Our  theories  have  drawn  them 
too  closely,  in  fact,  for  until  of  late  we  have  never  recognized 
the  social  aspect  of  personality  as  one  of  its  elements.  Yet 
we  do  find  human  personality  a  mysteriously  bounded  and 
exclusive  thing.  Each  person  has  his  own  field  of  life:  if 
modern  psychology  suggests  weird  possibilities  of  division  and 
overlapping,  still  the  normal  experience  thus  far  testifies  that 
persons  are  ordinarily  separate  from  one  another,  and  one 
personal  consciousness  does  not  take  in  another’s  contents. 
These  restrictions  are  so  real  to  us  that  we  may  think  they  are 
of  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  judge  finitude  to  be  of  the  very 
essence  of  personality.  So  personality  in  God  may  seem 
inconceivable:  infinite  personality  is  often  said  to  be  a  con¬ 
tradiction  in  terms,  since  one  element  in  the  conception 
is  limited  and  the  other  unlimited.  Pantheism  declares  the 
divine  and  the  personal  to  be  incompatible,  and  many  besides 
pantheists  have  difficulty  with  the  personality  of  God. 


66 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


But  why  claim  that  our  personality  must  be  typical  ?  A 
little  acquaintance  with  human  nature  should  teach  us  better. 
Our  personality  shows  no  signs  of  being  typical  or  ideal,  the 
standard  for  the  conception.  It  is  but  of  yesterday.  In 
every  individual  it  is  but  just  born.  In  the  race  it  is  still  grow¬ 
ing,  and  still  ungrown.  Only  in  recent  times  has  it  been  recog¬ 
nized  in  analytic  thought,  and  it  was  so  long  unrecognized 
partly  because  it  was  still  so  immature.  No  element  in  it  is 
perfect,  or  near  perfection.  With  our  self-consciousness  so 
incomplete,  our  self-determination  so  interfered  with  by 
external  forces,  and  our  relations  mastering  us  more  than  we 
master  them,  how  can  we  think  that  the  ideal  of  all  personality 
is  found  in  this  imperfect  constitution  of  ours  ?  The  typical 
personality  must  be  found  beyond  the  limitations  that  confine 
our  life.  It  cannot  be  in  us:  it  must  be  in  some  being  in 
whom  all  the  powers  that  enter  into  personality  exist  in  per¬ 
fection  of  quality,  in  fulness  of  degree,  and  in  freedom  of 
action.  In  this  view  the  opinion  that  infinity  and  personality 
are  mutually  exclusive  loses  its  convincing  power.  The 
limitations  that  we  find  so  strict  and  separative  are  guides 
for  personality  to  grow  by,  rather  than  bounds  essential  to 
its  perfection.  We  might  imagine  that  the  narrow  limits  of 
our  life  were  favourable  to  that  complete  self-knowledge  and 
self-mastery  which  the  true  type  implies — for  is  not  the  small 
more  manageable  than  the  great?  But  it  proves  other¬ 
wise.  Any  field  of  intelligent  life  is  too  great  for  us  to  mas¬ 
ter  altogether,  and  in  proportion  as  we  know  ourselves  we 
know  that  only  a  perfect  spirit  can  be  the  type  and  standard 
of  personal  being.  Only  the  perfect  can  fully  know  him¬ 
self,  or  direct  himself,  or  be  master  of  his  relations.  The 
essential  powers  of  personality  as  we  know  them  even  in 
ourselves  are  of  such  kind  that  they  can  have  their  per¬ 
fection  in  none  but  God.  So  when  the  Christian  doctrine 
represents  God  as  personal,  it  means  that  in  him  is  the  per¬ 
fection  of  the  powers  that  constitute  personality  in  us; 
and  this  surely  is  no  difficult  doctrine  or  obscure.  Where 
indeed  should  the  type  of  spiritual  existence  be?  in  the 


PERSONALITY 


67 


derived,  or  the  original?  in  the  creature,  or  the  creator? 
in  the  child,  or  the  Father? 

Thus  we  do  not  say  something  unintelligible  when  we  speak 
of  a  personal  God.  But  we  have  to  confess  that  the  greatness 
of  such  a  God  is  incomprehensible  though  not  unintelligible, 
and  we  must  not  forget  that  what  we  cannot  comprehend  we 
cannot  fully  describe.  Since  God’s  personality  so  far  tran¬ 
scends  our  own,  our  human  descriptive  terms  are  inadequate 
to  set  it  forth.  We  must  use  such  language  as  we  have,  but 
we  must  be  mindful  of  its  insufficiency.  This  trouble  goes 
back  even  to  the  simplest  matters.  We  designate  a  person 
by  a  pronoun,  and  when  we  speak  of  God  in  terms  of  person¬ 
ality  we  use  the  pronoun  He.  We  have  no  means  of  doing 
better,  but  our  word  narrows  our  thought.  All  personal  pro¬ 
nouns  take  their  suggestiveness  from  human  nature  and  their 
measurement  from  human  dimensions.  This  one  retains 
qualities  derived  from  human  individuality,  in  which  limita¬ 
tion  is  an  unavoidable  element.  A  word  that  ordinarily 
represents  a  man  has  no  power  to  represent  that  infinite 
greatness,  fulness  and  variety  which  we  must  attribute  to  him 
who  is  all  in  all.  Through  depending  upon  the  pronoun  He 
we  may  easily  come  to  think  of  God  as  if  he  corresponded  to 
some  single  type  of  personal  being;  whereby  we  should  do 
injustice  to  him  and  impoverish  ourselves.  The  ancient 
“plural  of  majesty,”  applied  to  him,  if  it  could  be  used  with 
a  fine  poetic  largeness,  might  have  its  virtues  still.  But  our 
pronoun  is  imperfect  again,  for  it  is  limited  even  in  gender. 
It  is  masculine,  and  suggests  only  the  idea  of  masculine  per¬ 
sonality.  God  is  regarded  as  male:  what  can  he  be  called 
but  He  ?  Yet  this  must  be  wrong,  for  the  ideals  of  the  femi¬ 
nine  as  well  as  of  the  masculine  must  reside  in  the  being  of 
God.  All  that  is  womanly  can  be  traced  back  to  him  as 
truly  as  all  that  is  manly.  All  the  virtues  evoked  in  all 
sorts  of  human  beings  by  the  experiences  of  life  are  lowly 
reproductions  of  good  that  is  eternal  in  God.  All  ideals  of 
goodness  that  have  ever  inspired  humanity  are  “broken 


68 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


lights’^  of  his  full-orbed  perfection,  and  the  powers  by  which 
men  have  done  their  various  work  have  all  existed  in  imper¬ 
fect  likeness  to  his.  He  transcends  the  for  to  know 

the  personal  God  as  he  is  would  be  to  know  all  personal 
powers  and  excellences  in  perfection  and  in  unity,  infinite 
variety  being  gathered  into  one. 

If  we  could  not  thus  expand  and  fill  out  our  conception  of 
personality,  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  God  would  be  a 
restriction  upon  the  range  of  our  thought  and  the  upreach  of 
our  faith.  Such  a  restriction  it  is  often  alleged  to  be,  but  it 
is  not.  On  the  contrary  we  find  liberty  and  rest  in  the  thought 
that  perfect  personality  requires  the  largeness  of  infinity,  and 
can  exist  in  God  alone.  In  affirming  perfect  personality  in 
God,  the  present  Christian  doctrine  reaffirms  a  thought  that 
has  been  among  its  vital  elements  from  the  beginning,  namely, 
**God  is  a  Spirit^’  (Jn.  iv.  24).  The  text  is  sometimes  trans¬ 
lated,  ^^God  is  spirit,’’  as  if  it  were  intended  for  a  state¬ 
ment  of  God’s  metaphysical  nature.  But  the  context  gives 
the  words  a  simpler  and  stronger  meaning,  for  it  adds  that 
because  God  is  a  Spirit,  “  they  that  worship  him  must  worship 
him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.”  The  declaration  is  that  God  and 
man  correspond  each  to  the  other:  man  is  a  spirit,  and  so  is 
God:  ‘‘spirit  with  Spirit  can  meet,”  and  only  in  such  meeting 
is  there  genuine  worship.  So  wherever  the  human  spirit  seeks 
the  divine,  the  divine  may  be  found,  whether  in  a  so-called 
sacred  place  or  not;  for  the  divine  is  indeed  a  Spirit,  that 
knows  and  loves  and  acts  without  such  limits  of  time  and  space 
as  confine  the  human.  It  would  not  have  been  quite  the 
same  to  say,  “God  is  a  Person,  and  they  that  worship  him 
must  bring  him  genuine  personal  worship,”  and  yet  this  poor 
paraphrase  is  not  so  very  far  from  the  meaning  of  the  words. 

In  this  consideration  of  divine  personality  it  has  been  as¬ 
sumed  that  a  spiritual  anthropomorphism  is  a  true  key  to 
right  knowledge  of  God.  Man  is  like  God,  and  may  learn 
of  him  by  knowledge  of  himself.  This  claim  is  sometimes 
condemned  as  presumptuous,  even  by  men  of  faith,  and  many 
deny  that  we  have  the  right  to  project  our  own  likeness  up  to 


PERSONALITY 


69 


the  region  where  we  are  looking  for  our  God.  Such  action, 
we  are  told,  vitiates  our  whole  endeavour:  what  but  childish¬ 
ness  would  be  so  rash?  But  the  condemnation  is  not  valid. 
Personality  is  the  highest  fact  that  we  know  in  all  the  realm 
of  being.  As  to  what  there  really  is  above  us,  we  are  far 
more  likely  to  find  the  truth  by  seeking  from  the  height  of  the 
human  spirit  than  by  searching  in  regions  that  are  farther 
away  from  the  supreme  reality.  Surely  the  Highest  is  to  be 
discovered  in  the  light  of  the  highest  that  we  know.  God  is 
to  be  discovered  in  the  light  of  man,  rather  than  of  nature  and 
the  world  non-human,  and  from  finite  personality  we  may 
best  ascend,  if  we  wish  to  think  upward  to  the  reality  that 
surpasses  all  our  thoughts.  Starting  from  this  human  per¬ 
sonality  of  ours,  we  are  able  to  perceive  that  the  like  of  it, 
carried  above  the  human  and  expanded  to  infinity,  would  be 
a  God,  adequate  to  the  universe.  Without  fear,  therefore,  the 
Christian  faith  holds  the  doctrine  of  the  personal  God  as  true 
doctrine,  to  be  completed,  not  superseded,  by  knowledge  yet 
to  come. 

Doubtless  it  is  true  that  the  vastness  of  the  thought  renders 
a  personal  God  hard  to  believe  in,  and  that  many  will  stumble 
at  the  difficulty.  The  virtual  infinity  of  the  universe  as  now 
conceived  is  so  overwhelming  to  us  as  to  place  beyond  our 
imagining  a  mind  that  can  comprehend  it  and  control  it. 
This  we  must  not  only  acknowledge,  but  claim.  It  is  not  a 
sign  of  the  absence  of  God,  but  of  his  greatness.  We  do  not 
usually  suppose  that  what  lies  beyond  our  imagining  cannot 
exist,  and  we  must  let  in  no  influence  from  so  absurd  a 
supposition.  No  one  has  ever  comprehended  the  Milky  Way, 
but  that  is  nothing  against  its  reality;  and  if  no  one  can 
comprehend  the  infinite  personality,  still  an  infinite  Person 
may  exist.  Nay,  it  is  inevitable  that  all  the  greatest  realities 
should  be  beyond  our  comprehension.  Any  evidence  of  a 
mind  in  the  constitution  of  the  world  leads  us  on  at  once  into 
the  incomprehensible,  for  a  mind  capable  of  weaving  its  own 
thought  into  the  web  of  existence  is  too  great  for  us  to  com¬ 
prehend.  What  we  are  learning  of  the  world  in  modern 


70 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


science  goes  to  confirm  the  reality  of  an  incomprehensible  all- 
embracing  mind,  in  which  the  powers  that  we  know  in  our¬ 
selves  as  personal  exist  in  boundless  freedom.  But  it  is  not 
through  the  vastness  of  the  universe  that  we  are  to  become 
acquainted  with  that  mind.  It  is  in  the  life  of  the  soul  that 
we  have  learned  to  believe  in  the  will  of  God,  the  wisdom  of 
God  and  the  love  of  God,  and  it  is  there  that  our  personality 
finds  its  rest  in  his. 


3.  GOODNESS 

The  Christian  doctrine  of  God  is  first  of  all  a  doctrine  of 
character,  and  the  character  is  perfect  goodness.  It  declares 
that  God,  who  as  a  personal  spirit  possesses  character,  is 
completely  and  absolutely  good.  This,  with  what  is  involved 
in  it  and  comes  forth  from  it,  is  really  the  Christian  message 
to  the  world. 

It  is  needless  to  show  that  this  great  affirmation  has  always 
been  characteristic  of  the  Christian  doctrine.  This  was  the 
great  word  uttered  already  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  as  it  had 
been  uttered  with  many  perversions  in  the  religions  of  the 
world.  This  was  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  and  this  the  lesson 
that  made  all  things  new  in  the  early  Christian  experience. 
Never  before  Jesus,  however,  was  the  perfect  goodness  of 
God  proclaimed  with  clear  voice  and  full  rejoicing.  In  the 
Old  Testament  it  was  announced  now  and  then  without 
reserve,  but  the  confidence  was  dimmed  by  frequent  question¬ 
ing.  The  apparent  contradictions  against  the  divine  good¬ 
ness  that  the  life  of  the  world  affords  rose  to  trouble  souls  that 
sought  to  trust  the  higher  good.  The  perplexing  facts  of  life, 
the  prosperity  of  the  wicked,  the  sufferings  of  the  good,  the 
seeming  ruin  of  the  nation  that  stood  for  God  above  the  rest, 
the  failure  of  righteousness  to  vindicate  itself,  raised  agonizing 
doubts,  and  only  through  hard  struggle  did  the  faithful  come 
to  confidence  in  the  goodness  of  God.  They  would  not  give 
it  up:  if  they  could  have  done  that  they  might  have  under¬ 
stood  the  world,  though  with  a  cheerless  understanding. 


GOODNESS 


71 


They  would  not  give  it  up,  and  hence  their  perplexity  and 
anguish.  Yet  amid  the  darkness,  faith  in  the  goodness  of 
God  is  on  the  whole  the  faith  that  rules  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Such  faith  comes  gradually  more  and  more  to  be  the  guide 
and  rule  of  life  for  men.  The  good  God  requires  men  to  be 
good  also — this  is  the  key  to  the  ancient  law  of  ethics  in  its 
highest  forms.  The  contents  of  this  requirement  are  not 
wrought  out  all  at  once,  of  course,  and  it  is  equally  a  matter 
of  course  that  the  contents  of  the  idea  of  goodness  itself  were 
not  perceived  so  truly  and  fully  as  to  render  possible  a  full 
application  of  it  to  life.  But  in  the  Hebrew  religion  the 
goodness  of  God  stands  as  the  law  of  righteousness  for  men, 
even  long  before  men  have  learned  how  much  that  law  must 
claim. 

Jesus  is  the  first  to  hold  with  high  understanding  and  un¬ 
broken  joy  that  God  is  altogether  good.  He  utters  no 
commonplaces  on  the  subject,  but  he  utters  the  truth  and  lives 
the  life.  His  testimony  is  to  the  effect  that  God  is  perfectly 
worthy  of  the  simplest  and  most  comprehensive  confidence, 
and  his  will  is  worthy  to  be  chosen  and  done  by  every  soul. 
Thus  he  taught,  and  thus  he  lived.  For  him  this  affirmation 
was  undisturbed  by  the  evil  of  the  world.  There  is  no  sign 
that  the  problems  that  afflicted  Job  and  Jeremiah  ever 
troubled  him.  He  knew  the  evil  of  the  world  of  men,  but  it 
did  not  darken  for  him  the  heaven  of  his  Father.  If  his  own 
will,  as  in  Gethsemane,  needed  to  bow  to  that  of  his  Father, 
still  his  Father’s  will  was  good  in  his  sight,  and  to  bow  to  it 
was  his  privilege,  however  painful  the  sacrifice  that  was 
involved.  With  clear  discernment  of  what  perfect  goodness 
means,  Jesus  held  through  his  entire  career,  with  unbroken 
confidence  and  joy,  that  perfect  goodness  dwells  in  God. 
And  he  held,  and  taught,  that  divine  goodness  is  perfect  and 
sufficient  law  for  human  goodness,  and  men  must  seek  to  be 
children  of  their  Father  who  is  in  heaven,  bearing  his  character. 

When  the  doctrine  of  God  went  forth  from  Jesus  into 
Christian  life  and  thought,  it  went  as  the  doctrine  of  a  perfect 
goodness.  As  an  ethical  standard,  the  goodness  of  God  was 


72 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


taken  for  immediate  use.  The  old  command,  ‘‘Be  ye  holy, 
for  I  am  holy’^  (Lev.  xx.  7),  had  obtained  new  fulness  of 
meaning,  and  was  now  brought  home  to  application  in  present 
life.  Moreover,  the  living  sense  of  the  perfect  goodness  of 
God  appears  to  have  been  to  the  early  Christians  like  a  new 
sun  in  the  heavens,  brightening  all  above  and  all  below. 
Doubt  or  question  of  the  divine  goodness  does  not  appear  on 
the  pages  of  the  New  Testament,  and,  except  in  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse,  the  facts  of  life  that  commonly  raise  doubt  of  it  do  not 
stand  out  in  such  light  as  to  suggest  the  question.  Even  there, 
perplexity  is  conquered  by  faith.  The  Christian  glory  of  love 
fell  upon  all  in  which  God  was  manifest,  and  his  goodness 
was  unquestioned. 

The  Christian  doctrine  has  always  proclaimed  that  God  is 
good,  but  has  never  done  full  justice  to  its  own  testimony. 
Its  affirmation  has  never  varied,  and  yet  it  has  never  been  a 
clear  and  consistent  doctrine  of  perfect  goodness.  In  this 
there  is  nothing  strange.  The  Christian  people  have  been 
sure  that  God  is  good,  but  have  not  fully  known  what  good¬ 
ness  means.  The  doctrine  has  been  clear  and  earnest  in  the 
proclamation  of  goodness,  but  unclear  and  often  wrong  in  the 
definition  of  it.  This  was  an  inevitable  condition,  which  we 
must  bear  in  mind  if  we  are  to  understand  the  Christian 
history.  The  question  whether  God  is  good  is  always  pres¬ 
ent,  for  the  moral  mysteries  of  life  never  allow  it  to  be  for¬ 
gotten.  The  Christian  faith  has  always  taken  the  same  side 
of  the  question,  affirming  in  doctrine,  prayer  and  song  that 
God  is  good.  But  the  full  meaning  of  goodness  is  a  long 
lesson  to  learn,  and  unavoidably  the  truth  was  affirmed  long 
before  it  was  well  understood.  Christian  faith  has  affirmed 
the  goodness,  and  attributed  to  God  such  attitudes  and  works 
as  corresponded  to  its  idea  of  goodness;  but  these  have  some¬ 
times  been  such  as  almost  to  rob  the  joyful  tidings  of  its 
welcome.  The  upward  struggle  in  the  history  of  doctrine 
has  been  the  long  endeavour  to  bring  the  body  of  doctrine 
into  harmony  with  the  goodness  of  God.  The  endeavour  has 
been  only  half  conscious,  for  the  Church  has  held  its  mixed 


GOODNESS 


73 


doctrine  of  goodness,  unaware  of  the  moral  contradictions. 
This  is  the  pathetic  element  in  the  story  of  doctrine.  But  the 
happy  element  beside  it  is  that  Christian  faith  has  never 
sought  relief  from  perplexities,  whether  necessary  or  needless, 
by  denying  or  doubting  that  God  is  good.  It  has  never 
sought  unity  of  thought  by  denying  the  perfect  character. 
This  it  has  always  held  fast,  even  while  it  was  holding  doc¬ 
trines  that  must  afterward  be  altered  by  the  influence  of  so 
high  a  truth.  Even  until  now  the  Christian  faith  is  faith  in 
the  perfect  goodness  of  God,  held  despite  all  difficulties. 
Something  in  defence  of  this  high  confidence  will  be  said  else¬ 
where:  at  present  it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  has  always  declared  that  God  is  good,  and  that  in  the 
later  times  it  is  seeking  more  intelligently  to  conform  itself 
to  this  supreme  truth. 

By  the  nature  of  the  case  as  well  as  in  the  light  of  the 
history,  the  statement  ‘^God  is  good”  needs  definition. 
What  do  we  mean,  and  what  ought  we  to  mean,  by  goodness, 
a  term  that  we  use  in  application  both  to  men  and  to  God  ? 

Of  course  our  conceptions  of  goodness  in  character  are 
all  derived  from  our  experience  of  character  in  men.  Human 
life  is  our  only  field  of  observation,  and  it  is  a  field  in  which 
ideas  of  good  and  evil  in  character  inevitably  grow  up. 
Moral  character  belongs  to  nothing  but  personality  and 
conduct,  and  to  all  that  is  human  it  does  belong.  Life  can¬ 
not  fail  to  teach  lessons  about  goodness,  what  it  is.  It 
teaches  imperfectly,  but  it  teaches,  and  in  the  long  run  it 
teaches  well,  so  that  trustworthy  conceptions  of  goodness  come 
to  be  abroad. 

Life  cannot  teach  except  progressively,  leading  on  from 
thoughts  that  have  been  to  thoughts  that  are  to  be :  wherefore 
our  conceptions  must  be  variable,  changing  with  our  condi¬ 
tion.  Objection  is  sometimes  made  to  our  aflSrming  that 
God  is  good,  on  the  ground  that  goodness  is  not  the  same  to 
all,  so  that  the  statement  has  no  definite  meaning.  It  is  quite 
true  that  goodness  is  variously  conceived  among  men.  The 


74 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


idea  varies  with  mental  development,  with  social  experience 
and  with  moral  progress.  Differences  in  all  these  are  sure 
to  make  difference  in  the  ideal  of  goodness.  But  all  sound 
human  progress  tends  to  the  elevation  and  purification  of 
this  ideal.  The  existence  and  progress  of  a  sound  ideal  of 
goodness  is  no  dream.  The  differences,  wide  as  they  look, 
are  differences  in  one  idea,  and  beneath  them  there  is  a 
genuine  unity  of  conception.  It  is  not  in  vain  to  look  for  a 
deep  central  agreement  as  to  what  is  good  in  human  char¬ 
acter  and  conduct.  The  variations  illustrate  the  unity, 
rather  than  destroy  it.  Goodness  can  be  defined. 

Goodness  means  the  same  in  all  moral  beings.  In  different 
moral  beings  there  will  indeed  be  different  degrees  of  good¬ 
ness,  and  different  modes  of  putting  it  into  action,  varying 
with  position,  relations,  degrees  of  intelligence  and  grades 
of  character.  Various  good  acts  may  look  so  unlike  as  hardly 
to  show  their  identity  in  moral  kind.  But  it  never  turns 
out  that  goodness  is  essentially  one  thing  to  one  moral  being 
and  another  thing  to  another.  It  is  the  same  at  heart  for  all. 
The  identity  is  often  concealed  by  the  fact  that  duty  is  one 
thing  in  one  position  or  relation  and  another  thing  in  another. 
Acts  that  would  be  wrong  for  the  parent  are  right  for  the  child, 
and  acts  that  are  wrong  for  the  child  are  required  of  the 
parent,  yet  no  one  doubts  that  goodness  is  in  principle  the 
same  for  both.  In  like  manner,  goodness  means  the  same 
in  God  as  in  man.  We  need  not  be  misled  by  the  fact  that 
God  does  and  must  do  much  that  man  may  not  do,  for  that 
makes  no  difference  with  the  unity  of  goodness  for  the  two. 
When  we  say  that  God  is  good,  we  must  mean  that  God 
possesses  that  character  which  constitutes  goodness  in  men. 
We  can  mean  nothing  else,  for  if  we  tried  to  give  them  any 
other  meaning  the  words  would  convey  no  genuine  thought. 
This  we  do  mean.  This  is  what  the  Christian  doctrine  means 
when  it  affirms  that  God  is  perfectly  good:  it  attributes  to 
God  the  character  that  we  men  in  our  long  career  of  moral 
experience  and  judgment  have  learned  to  consider  good  and 
to  approve  as  worthy  of  moral  beings. 


GOODNESS 


75 


The  goodness  that  the  Christian  doctrine  attributes  to 
God  is  perfect  goodness;  and  that  means  that  to  God  we 
assign  all  the  qualities  that  enter  into  goodness  as  we  know  it 
among  ourselves,  and  hold  that  he  possesses  them  in  perfect 
degree  and  without  defect  or  contradiction.  In  him,  we 
say,  all  that  we  know  as  good  is  raised  to  its  highest  power, 
and  exists  as  an  unbroken  moral  consistency.  This  is  the 
Christian  affirmation.  Here  again  we  do  not  apologize  for 
letting  our  conception  of  God  begin  in  our  knowledge  of  man. 
We  have  no  other  way  of  reaching  above  ourselves,  and  this 
way  is  justified  in  the  end  by  what  we  discover. 

From  this  mode  of  approach  to  the  subject  does  it  follow 
that  in  the  goodness  of  God  there  are  no  traits  that  are  not 
included  in  human  goodness?  Is  there  something  in  the 
divine  goodness  that  has  no  place  in  the  goodness  that  belongs 
to  man  ?  or  is  the  range  of  virtues  essentially  the  same  in 
both? 

As  to  this,  it  is  plain  that  if  additional  virtues  do  enter  into 
the  goodness  of  God,  lying  wholly  beyond  the  range  of  human 
virtue,  we  can  have  no  idea  of  what  they  are.  They  are  as 
far  beyond  our  ken  as  a  fourth  dimension  in  space,  if  such 
there  be.  But  this  also  is  plain — that  if  such  additional 
virtues  do  exist  they  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  traits  that 
enter  into  human  goodness.  In  a  God  of  perfect  goodness 
there  are  no  moral  contradictions;  and  any  excellences  in 
him  that  are  hidden  from  us  would  certainly  appear  as  excel¬ 
lences  if  they  could  be  submitted  to  our  moral  judgment. 
Of  course  it  is  conceivable  that  there  are  kinds  of  virtue  quite 
unknown  to  us  in  our  present  state  but  existing  in  God, 
which  in  some  future  state  we  may  become  capable  of  appre¬ 
hending.  It  seems  scarcely  probable.  It  seems  more  proba¬ 
ble  that  the  traits  that  constitute  moral  excellence  are  really 
the  same  in  all  beings,  and  that  no  greater  number  of  es¬ 
sential  virtues  is  required  to  make  a  good  God  than  to  make 
a  good  man.  In  God  the  qualities  that  render  a  moral  being 
good  exist  in  perfect  fulness  and  have  complete  freedom  of 
exercise.  In  men  they  are  infantile  in  grade,  or  juvenile  at 


76 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


most,  and  are  growing  up  through  the  keenest  moral  conflict. 
But  the  holy  war  in  their  favour  has  this  to  encourage  it, 
that  these  qualities  which  make  up  human  virtues  constitute 
divine  perfection  also,  and  that  to  gain  them  for  one’s  own 
is  to  enter  into  the  fellowship  of  eternal  being. 

This  view  of  the  relation  between  human  goodness  and 
divine  involves  two  facts  with  respect  to  our  understanding  of 
the  goodness  of  God.  One  is  that  the  goodness  of  God  is 
essentially  intelligible  to  us.  Our  conception  of  it  is  an  ex¬ 
tension  of  what  we  already  know.  The  essential  meaning  of 
goodness,  or  moral  excellence,  has  been  brought  to  light  in  the 
experience  of  human  life,  and  has  become  settled  in  our 
convictions.  Goodness  in  God  is  no  vague  and  indefinable 
quality,  that  may  turn  out  to  be  one  thing  or  another,  or  may 
elude  us  entirely  when  we  seek  to  understand  it.  We  are 
released  from  all  perplexities  that  come  from  the  belief  that 
God  has  a  standard  of  his  own  which  we  can  never  hope  to 
understand.  The  central  idea  of  the  morally  good  has  be¬ 
come  clear  in  human  life,  and  is  so  grounded  in  the  deeps  of 
our  moral  experience  as  to  be  unalterable.  Great  harm  has 
come  to  religion  and  to  common  life  from  the  idea,  expressed 
or  implied,  that  God  has  given  one  standard  of  goodness  to 
men,  but  has  another  for  himself.  But  this  is  no  true  part  of 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  God,  which  affirms  that  goodness 
is  one  and  the  same  everywhere,  and  even  in  God  is  essen¬ 
tially  intelligible  to  us. 

The  other  fact,  equally  unquestionable,  is  that  in  the 
operation  of  divine  goodness  there  must  be  much  that  we  do 
not  understand.  We  say  that  in  God  the  goodness  that  we 
know  is  raised  to  its  highest  power.  That  means  that  it  will 
take  forms  that  lie  beyond  our  experience,  and  perform 
works  that  are  beyond  our  understanding.  Much  of  its 
operation  must  be  to  us  mysterious.  Some  of  its  workings 
will  be  plain  to  our  comprehension,  but  some  will  require 
time  for  their  explication,  while  some  we  may  never  in  this  life 
be  wise  enough  or  good  enough  to  understand.  Acting  in 
goodness  supreme  and  infinite,  God  must  be  his  own  inter^ 


GOODNESS 


77 


preter  to  the  inferior  knowledge  and  virtue  of  men,  and  his 
self-interpretation  may  often  seem  to  them  slow  and  painful. 
We  men  have  a  clear  grasp  upon  the  principle  of  goodness  in 
God,  and  yet  are  certain  to  find  that  the  practice  of  it  is 
often  beyond  our  comprehension.  Like  human  goodness, 
and  yet  beyond  it,  is  the  divine. 

It  is  now  time  to  seek  for  a  definition  of  the  inner  nature  of 
goodness.  What  lies  at  the  heart  of  it  ?  What  is  it  that  makes 
either  a  man  or  a  God  good  ?  The  question  must  be  answered 
in  the  human  light.  Abstract  discussion  helps  but  little:  it 
is  from  concrete  goodness  that  a  valid  definition  must  be 
made,  and  the  concrete  goodness  that  we  can  observe  and 
estimate  is  human. 

Human  goodness  is  expressed  and  discovered  in  the  social 
relations  that  belong  to  mankind.  Without  the  social  fact, 
or  the  fact  of  relations,  personality  and  character  could  not 
be  developed  or  put  to  their  proper  use.  Only  in  relations  is 
self-revelation  made,  and  only  there  is  true  self-knowledge 
attainable.  Hence  it  is  through  the  actions  of  men  in  their 
relations  that  the  idea  of  goodness  has  been  developed. 
There  was  no  other  way.  As  a  moral  quality  governing  the 
will  and  inspiring  the  affections,  goodness  is  invisible;  and 
for  that  reason  it  had  to  be  discovered  and  defined  in  the 
light  of  what  was  done  in  the  relations  in  which  men  live. 

Defining  goodness  from  human  experience  we  shall  say  that 
practical  goodness  consists  in  the  normal  fulfilling  of  a  man’s 
relations,  or  the  fulfilling  of  them  in  a  manner  that  accords 
with  their  nature  at  its  best;  and  further,  that  goodness  itself, 
regarded  as  an  interior  fact  in  the  man,  consists  in  the  moral 
qualities  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  able,  and  sure,  to  give  normal 
fulfilment  to  his  relations.  A  good  man  is  shown  to  be 
good  by  conduct  that  does  justice  to  the  relations  in  which 
he  stands,  and  is  good  by  possession  of  the  moral  qualities 
that  bring  such  conduct  forth.  A  good  man  is  one  who 
does  what  is  right  and  good  toward  all  with  whom  he  has  deal¬ 
ings,  including  both  his  God  and  himself;  and  that  by  which 


78 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


he  is  constituted  good  is  the  set  of  qualities  by  virtue  of  which 
this  fitting  and  worthy  conduct  comes  to  pass.  It  may  seem 
that  a  definition  of  goodness  ought  to  be  more  abstract  than 
this,  but  this  simple  and  concrete  method  is  the  one  by  which 
mankind  obtained  its  idea  of  goodness,  and  is  the  most  ef¬ 
fective  method,  even  yet.  It  is  evident  that  here  we  have  a 
clear  and  firm  principle  for  our  definition,  whereby  goodness 
has  a  solid  meaning,  while  yet  it  is  plain  that  goodness 
actually  existing  will  be  of  all  degrees,  and  be  judged  by  an 
endless  variety  of  standards.  This  combined  firmness  and 
flexibility  in  the  definition  commends  it  as  true  to  the  facts 
with  which  it  deals. 

But  we  can  carry  our  defining  further.  To  some  extent 
we  can  analyze  the  goodness  that  we  discover.  We  can  specify 
the  qualities  that  a  man  must  possess  in  order  to  the  normal 
fulfilling  of  his  relations,  and  thus  indicate  the  constituents 
of  goodness.  In  order  that  a  man  may  normally  fulfil  his 
relations,  three  things  are  necessary;  and  it  is  difficult  to 
see  what  fourth  can  be  added  as  of  the  same  rank  with  them. 

The  first  thing  needful  for  worthy  fulfilment  of  relations 
is  discernment  of  the  relations  as  they  are,  and  of  what  they 
require.  Every  man  is  aware  of  some  relations  in  which  he 
stands,  and  has  some  good  understanding  of  them,  and  these 
are  the  ones  to  which  he  is  most  likely  to  do  justice.  A 
man’s  relations  to  his  family,  to  his  neighbours,  to  the  state, 
to  the  needy,  to  the  sinful,  to  himself,  to  God,  require  to  be 
perceived  somewhat  as  they  are,  if  he  is  to  fulfil  them  as  their 
nature  demands.  He  must  apprehend  them  justly  enough  to 
see  what  they  require.  It  is  easy  to  see  a  sufficient  reason 
why  human  relations  are  so  poorly  fulfilled :  if  there  were  no 
other  reason,  it  is  enough  that  they  are  so  poorly  understood. 
By  ignorance,  indifference  and  lack  of  moral  insight  it  is 
brought  to  pass  that  the  relations  of  life  are  overlooked,  mis¬ 
conceived  and  sinned  against.  One  thing  that  a  man  needs 
in  order  to  full  goodness  is  a  broad,  rich,  intelligent  knowledge 
of  the  relations  that  he  has  to  fulfil,  with  perception  of  what 
they  mean  and  what  they  require. 


GOODNESS 


79 


A  second  thing  needful  we  perhaps  may  name  spirituality: 
it  is  the  primary  choice  and  assertion  of  the  considerations 
that  take  hold  upon  the  soul  and  the  higher  life.  The  name 
may  seem  inadequate,  for  it  is  none  too  definite,  and  the 
quality  takes  many  forms,  but  the  quality  itself  is  distinguish¬ 
able  enough.  A  parent  may  feed  and  clothe  his  child  with 
perfect  judgment,  but  he  must  also  attend  to  the  child’s 
truthfulness,  purity,  intelligence  and  preparation  for  worthy 
life,  if  he  is  to  fulfil  his  relation  of  parenthood  according  to 
its  nature.  A  community  may  prize  prosperity  in  business, 
but  it  needs  also  to  prize  justice  and  the  ideals  that  make  for 
righteousness.  A  man  may  prize  his  relation  to  God  as  a 
means  to  his  own  welfare,  but  if  he  is  to  fulfil  it  worthily  he 
must  prize  it  also  as  a  means  for  serving  God’s  purpose  in  a 
useful  life.  The  considerations  that  take  hold  upon  the  soul 
and  the  higher  life  include  conscience,  righteousness,  love  of 
purity,  interest  in  the  moral  ranking  of  things,  longing  for 
supremacy  of  the  best.  One  who  is  to  fulfil  his  relations  in 
normal  manner  must  have  this  quality  of  spirituality,  or 
dominant  high  choice  and  judgment.  This  will  make  him 
high-minded,  righteous,  helpful  to  the  best,  in  all  relations 
that  he  sustains;  and  only  thus  can  he  fulfil  them  normally, 
in  the  manner  of  a  good  man. 

A  third  thing  needful  is  unselfishness  in  the  broadest  sense, 
with  all  that  it  means.  A  man  cannot  do  justice  to  his  rela¬ 
tions  with  others  if  he  considers  himself  alone,  or  sets  his  own 
interests  at  the  front.  His  neighbour  must  be  to  him  as  him¬ 
self,  and  often  more,  for  relations  are  reciprocal,  and  only  by 
genuine  sharing  of  interests  can  they  be  properly  fulfilled. 
And  yet  unselfishness  is  a  poor  and  insufficient  name.  Beau¬ 
tiful  as  it  is,  unselfishness  is  only  a  negative  thing,  and  only  a 
positive  grace  can  suitably  fulfil  the  human  relations.  Un¬ 
selfishness  is  only  a  less  perfect  name  for  the  grace  of  helpful 
love,  which  is  indeed  the  fulfilling  of  relations,  since  it  does 
the  thing  that  is  needed,  out  of  a  willing  heart.  It  considers 
not  itself,  but  accepts  the  call  of  life  to  free  self-sacrifice,  and 
thus  becomes  the  fulness  of  life  and  the  crown  of  perfectness. 


80 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


If  we  say  that  goodness  means  essentially  the  same  for 
all  who  are  capable  of  goodness,  we  imply  that  the  moral 
qualities  that  make  a  good  man  are  sufficient  to  make  a  good 
God,  if  they  exist  in  perfection.  Certainly  we  are  safe  in 
defining  practical  goodness  in  God  just  as  we  define  it  in  men. 
With  him  also  goodness  comes  to  effect  in  the  fulfilling  of  his 
relations  according  to  their  nature,  and  goodness  in  itself 
consists  in  the  character  by  virtue  of  which  he  normally  ful¬ 
fils  them.  Doubtless  this  definition  seems  cold  and  external, 
but  that  is  because  the  relations  themselves  are  not  set  forth 
by  it.  When  we  remember  what  they  are,  as  we  shall  soon 
have  occasion  to  do,  even  this  cool  definition  will  glow  with 
spiritual  light  and  warmth,  for  in  the  relations  of  God  with 
other  beings  are  involved  all  the  tragedy  and  glory  of  moral 
existence.  The  due  fulfilment  of  the  relations  in  which  God 
stands  to  other  being  calls  for  a  goodness  beyond  all  that  we 
can  describe;  and  if  they  prove  to  have  been  fulfilled  by  him 
in  accordance  with  their  highest  nature,  the  fact  will  show 
that  in  himself  he  is  good  beyond  our  farthest  thought.  All 
that  we  can  say  of  the  goodness  that  lies  hidden  in  God^s  in¬ 
finity  and  eternality  is,  that  it  is  the  quality  that  makes  him 
what  he  is  to  us  and  other  beings,  and  that  it  consists  in  the 
character  that  fulfils  all  relations  as  they  ought  to  be  fulfilled. 

When  we  seek  to  know  what  this  sufficient  divine  goodness 
consists  in,  we  must  answer  the  question  exactly  as  we  an¬ 
swered  it  with  respect  to  men;  for  we  are  quite  justified  in 
saying  that  the  qualities  that  will  make  a  good  moral  being 
will  make  either  a  good  man  or  a  good  God.  The  character 
by  which  a  man  will  do  justice  to  the  relations  in  which  he 
stands  is  the  character  by  which  God  will  do  the  same.  Any 
moral  being  must  fulfil  his  relations  by  knowing  them  as 
they  are,  and  holding  a  high  moral  judgment  concerning 
them,  and  devoting  himself  to  the  good  of  those  with  whom 
he  has  to  do.  A  sound  moral  understanding  of  the  case,  a 
heart  set  upon  right  adjustment  of  moral  values,  and  a  spirit 
of  self-forgetful  devotion  to  others’  good,  are  enough,  by  way 
of  character,  to  secure  the  right  and  worthy  fulfilling  of  all 


GOODNESS 


81 


relations.  Even  God  himself  needs  no  more  than  this.  No 
relations  can  be  conceived  that  do  not  require  these  qualities, 
discovered  in  human  goodness,  for  their  proper  fulfilment,  or 
that  require,  in  character,  anything  more.  In  men  these 
traits  exist  only  in  rudimentary  degree,  but  we  can  imagine 
them  carried  to  perfection,  and  then  they  suffice  for  God 
himself. 

So  our  induction  from  the  goodness  that  we  are  acquainted 
with  leads  us  to  say  that  the  perfect  goodness  of  God  consists 
in  perfect  knowledge  and  understanding  of  all  relations  in 
which  he  stands  to  other  beings  and  other  beings  stand  to 
him,  in  perfect  choice  and  use  of  the  highest  considerations 
and  seeking  of  the  worthiest  ends,  and  in  complete  unselfish 
devotion  to  the  good  of  all.  In  divine  action  these  qualities 
will  be  broken  up  into  endless  variety  and  infinite  beauty, 
and  will  appear  far  more  glorious  than  one  could  guess  from 
the  crude  and  unpoetic  language  in  which  we  set  them  forth. 
This  we  should  expect  of  anything  good  enough  to  be  divine. 
Both  in  their  simplicity  and  in  their  boundless  possibilities, 
and  in  their  sure  mysteriousness  as  well,  we  find  confirmation 
of  the  claim  that  these  are  the  true  essentials  of  divine  per¬ 
fection. 

We  have  not  named  these  elements  in  the  goodness  of 
God,  but  their  right  names  lie  just  before  us,  simple  and 
comprehensive,  familiar  yet  inexhaustible.  The  right  dis¬ 
cernment  and  understanding  of  all  relations  is  Wisdom.  The 
choice  and  affirmation  of  the  highest  considerations  is 
Holiness.  The  unselfish  and  self-giving  impulse  is  Love. 
These  qualities  may  be  defined  in  other  terms  than  have  now 
been  used,  and  we  shall  soon  see  what  boundless  wealth  of 
spiritual  meaning  their  familiar  names  half  cover  and  half 
reveal.  But  however  inadequate  our  names  for  them  may 
be,  these  are  the  true  constituents  of  goodness,  human  or 
divine.  Wisdom,  Holiness  and  Love  are  all  required  to 
make  a  good  man,  and  no  fourth  element  can  be  added  on 
the  same  plane  with  them.  Even  so  Wisdom,  Holiness  and 


82 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Love  make  a  good  God,  and  when  these  are  perfect  in  degree 
and  operation  nothing  needs  be  added  to  make  a  perfect 
God.  Or  if  it  is  not  so,  and  there  may  be  a  larger  and  more 
complex  doctrine  of  divine  perfection  at  last,  still  such  larger 
doctrine  is  not  for  this  world,  or  for  us  men  in  our  present 
limitations.  This  well-grounded  and  simple  idea  of  divine 
perfection  is  the  largest  and  best  to  which  we  can  hope  to 
attain.  This  is  the  substance  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
goodness  of  God — that  is  to  say,  of  the  character  of  God, 
which  must  next  be  unfolded  by  examination  of  these  essen¬ 
tial  constituents. 

But  the  order  in  which  the  three  elements  in  goodness  have 
been  presented  belongs  rather  to  the  human  sphere  than  to  the 
divine.  We  are  accustomed  to  think  of  human  goodness  in 
view  of  its  origin  and  development,  and  it  is  natural  to  speak 
first  of  the  right  discernment  of  the  relations  which  it  fulfils. 
Discernment,  estimate,  impulse — that  is  a  natural  order  of 
presentation  in  the  human  field.  But  our  exposition  of 
goodness  in  God  may  better  follow  another  method.  Here 
is  no  origin  or  development  to  be  considered,  but  the  setting 
forth  of  a  character.  We  have  no  occasion  to  unfold  one 
element  from  another,  as  if  we  were  giving  an  account  of  the 
formation  of  the  character  that  we  portray.  The  ancient 
discussion  as  to  the  relative  rank  of  attributes  in  God,  and 
which  of  them  should  be  considered  inclusive  of  another  or 
comprehensive  of  the  whole,  need  not  occupy  us.  Two  facts 
only  need  be  influential  just  now:  one  is,  that  in  presenting 
the  Christian  doctrine  we  are  setting  forth  a  character;  the 
other,  that  the  character  has  been  shown  to  us  in  a  gospel, 
or  a  message,  or  a  characteristic  work.  As  Christian  students 
we  are  seeking  to  portray  the  character  of  the  God  and 
Father  of  Jesus.  Our  task  is  to  present  as  truly  as  possible 
the  elements  that  enter  into  the  character,  and  to  exhibit 
the  character  in  the  light,  not  of  independent  constructive 
thought  but  of  the  redemption  that  gives  name  and  quality 
to  the  Christian  doctrine. 

To  this  end  it  is  best  to  begin  at  the  heart  of  the  matter. 


LOVE 


83 


Instead  of  saying  that  the  character  of  God  consists  of  Wis¬ 
dom,  Holiness  and  Love,  we  shall  do  better  justice  to  our 
task  if  we  invert  the  order,  and  say  that  it  consists  of  Love, 
Holiness  and  Wisdom.  We  are  unfolding  the  Christian 
doctrine  and  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  begins  with  Love. 
It  does  not  undertake  to  decide  whether  love  or  holiness  is 
intrinsically  the  more  important,  for  that  is  a  question  of 
which  we  shall  largely  be  relieved  by  looking  into  the  nature 
of  the  two;  but  as  a  message,  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  has  given 
to  the  world  begins  with  love.  With  Love,  therefore,  our  dis¬ 
cussion  shall  begin;  afterward  we  will  turn  our  gaze  to  Holi¬ 
ness,  and  Wisdom  will  be  best  understood  in  the  light  of 
both. 

4.  LOVE 

That  God,  standing  related  to  other  beings,  fulfils  his  rela¬ 
tions  with  them  in  accordance  with  the  first  and  supreme 
demand;  that  he  cares  for  them;  that  his  thought  and  interest 
are  not  centred  in  himself,  but  go  out  with  full  sincerity  and 
unseMsh  devotion  to  those  with  whom  he  has  to  do:  this 
trutl^s  Alpha  and  Omega  in  the  Christian  doctrine.  That 
doctrine  proclaims  not  a  self-centred  but  an  outreaching  God. 
It  tells  of  One  who  comes  forth  to  other  existence,  not  coolly  or 
calculatingly  but  with  the  impulse  to  which  belongs  the  warm¬ 
est  name  that  our  experience  has  taught  us  to  give  to  an 
affection.  That  name  is  love.  Within  the  conception  of 
God  as  existing  in  the  attitude  of  love,  all  that  is  special  and 
peculiar  in  Christianity  is  contained. 

There  is  a  passage  in  the  New  Testament  that  has  been 
recognized  oftener  than  any  other  as  expressive  of  the  heart 
of  the  Christian  message;  and  it  affirms  that  “God  so  loved 
the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  might  not  perish  but  have  eternal  life’' 
(Jn.  iii.  16).  Here  the  emphasis  falls  upon  love.  When  it  is 
written  that  “  God  is  love,”  such  honour  is  given  to  love  as  is 
never  given  to  any  other  quality  in  character;  and  that  God 
is  love  stands  in  the  New  Testament  as  one  of  the  ultimate 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


utterances  of  the  Christian  faith  and  thought.  The  entire 
working-out  of  the  Christian  message  and  experience  in  the 
Scriptures  is  an  unfolding  of  the  significance  and  power  of 
redemptive  love  in  Christ.  This  prominence  of  love  through¬ 
out  the  Christian  system  is  what  we  should  expect.  Various 
true  views  of  God  have  been  entertained  by  men,  but  that 
God  is  love  has  nowhere  else  been  proclaimed  as  truth  and 
wrought  out  into  a  message  of  grace  and  help.  This  is  the 
Christian  specialty;  and  a  religion  that  had  such  a  truth  to 
offer  could  not  set  it  anywhere  but  at  the  front.  No  wonder 
that  the  new  song  is  a  song  of  the  love  of  God. 

In  seeking  to  know  the  nature  of  divine  love  we  are  guided, 
as  elsewhere,  by  our  knowledge  of  the  human.  We  know 
that  love  must  be  essentially  the  same  in  God  as  in  man, 
or  else  the  word  can  have  no  meaning  for  us.  We  are 
familiar  with  love  in  human  life — a  passion  and  an  affection, 
a  longing  and  a  mighty  sacrifice,  all  in  one.  It  is  an  eager 
desire,  often  a  craving  that  seems  the  most  selfish  of  all 
things,  and  it  is  an  unselfish  affection,  a  free  outpouring  of 
one^s  best  for  another’s  sake.  As  these  two  impulses  seem 
completely  opposite  to  each  other,  so  in  experience  love  is  full 
of  contradictions;  and  yet  the  hunger  and  the  generosity  of 
love,  the  craving  and  the  giving,  the  demanding  and  the 
sacrifice,  are  not  so  deeply  contrasted  as  they  appear.  Both 
are  forms  of  one  thing,  for  both  are  natural  expressions  of  the 
high  estimate  which  the  heart  sets  upon  the  object  of  its 
affection.  Love  prizes  its  object  so  highly  that  it  cannot  rest 
without  possession,  and  at  the  same  time  so  highly  that  it 
cannot  withhold  any  service  or  blessing,  any  gift  or  sacrifice. 
Love  does  not  of  necessity  imply  high  moral  approbation,  for, 
as  all  the  world  knows,  it  often  goes  off  with  heart-breaking 
intensity  to  an  unworthy  object,  but  it  does  imply  an  over¬ 
whelming  sense  of  value,  with  intense  choice  and  eager  long¬ 
ing.  The  selfish  side  in  love  is  often  the  greater,  but  the 
truer  love  becomes  to  its  own  nature  the  more  thoroughly 
is  it  ruled  by  the  unselfish  and  sacrificing  impulse.  It  is 
love  and  love  only  that  understands  how  it  is  more  blessed  to 


LOVE 


85 


give  than  to  receive.  Nevertheless,  at  no  stage  in  the  progress 
of  its  sweet  unselfishness  does  love  lose  its  desire  for  reciproca¬ 
tion,  without  which  it  would  be  but  an  imperfect  thing. 
Love  unreturned  has  often  a  marvellous  beauty  of  its  own, 
and  love  not  yet  returned  may  be  the  secret  of  high  endeavour; 
but  the  ideal  of  love  implies  equality  of  affection,  each  giving 
all  and  receiving  all. 

Though  human  love  contains  elements  thus  practically 
conflicting,  it  is  not  essentially  a  strife,  or  a  struggle  of  oppos¬ 
ing  impulses.  The  ideal  of  love  is  a  mighty  peace.  Love 
has  its  own  joys;  and  if  they  include  unspeakable  satisfaction 
in  the  reciprocity  of  souls,  they  include  also  the  gladness 
of  the  heart  that  serves,  and  the  incomparable  joy  of  self¬ 
giving  for  another’s  sake.  All  the  works  of  love  are  joys 
to  love,  whether  they  be  hard  or  easy.  Love  is  beneficence 
and  rests  in  the  peace  of  beneficence.  Love  is  the  daily 
light  of  life,  a  light  that  shines  in  calmness.  Even  its  shad¬ 
ows  are  beautiful,  and  its  radiance  is  the  glory  of  the 
world. 

From  human  love  we  look  upward  to  divine,  to  find  that 
though  we  rise  to  a  higher  world  the  principle  is  the  same  as. 
in  the  world  below.  If  we  have  any  doubt  about  our  right 
to  infer  what  heavenly  love  is  from  the  best  that  we  know  of 
love  on  earth,  we  have  only  to  listen  to  our  Master,  who  helps 
us  to  do  this  very  thing.  He  has  said,  “  If  ye  then,  being  evil, 
know  how  to  give  good  gifts  to  your  children,  how  much 
more  shall  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven  give  good  things  to 
them  that  ask  him”  (Mt.  vii.  11).  From  the  trustworthiness 
of  parental  love,  which  is  as  pure  and  fair  an  affection 
as  we  know,  he  bids  us  learn  of  what  nature  is  the  love 
of  God.  Human  love  is  Jacob’s  ladder,  with  God’s  angels 
ascending  and  descending  upon  it,  and  God  himself  standing 
above. 

God,  then,  is  moved  by  the  well-known  desire  to  impart 
himself  and  all  good  to  other  beings,  and  to  possess  them  as 
his  own  in  spiritual  fellowship.  This  is  his  love.  This  is  the 
attitude  in  which  he  stands  toward  other  beings  who  are  in 


86 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


relations  with  him,  and  it  is  thus  that  he  fulfils  his  relations. 
As  in  the  human  case  so  in  the  divine,  the  two-fold  desire 
does  not  of  necessity  imply  approval  on  the  lover’s  part.  But 
it  does  imply  high  prizing,  a  great  sense  of  value  in  the  object 
loved — and  it  is  no  cool  estimate,  but  a  glowing  sense  of  value 
on  the  part  of  him  who  loves.  The  Christian  doctrine  is  that 
God,  related  to  other  beings,  cares  for  them  with  such  love 
as  this;  he  feels  their  worth,  he  longs  to  do  them  good,  he 
desires  their  fellowship  in  a  love  that  returns  his  own,  he 
longs  to  impart  himself  to  them  in  a  mutual  affection,  and  his 
longing  toward  them  is  an  impulse  to  self-sacrifice  for  their 
sake,  such  as  human  love  has  learned  to  know  in  its  holiest 
experiences.  Such  love  in  God,  the  Christian  doctrine 
affirms,  is  no  special  or  temporary  thing,  part  of  some  special 
scheme  of  his  administration  of  affairs,  but  belongs  to  his 
eternal  nature,  which  in  Jesus  Christ  has  found  true  expres¬ 
sion.  In  this  attitude  he  stands,  because  he  is  what  he  is. 

With  this  conception  of  love  in  mind,  we  may  inquire  what 
the  writer  meant  to  affirm  when  he  wrote  the  unparalleled 
sentence,  ‘^God  is  love”  (1  Jn.  iv.  8).  Nowhere  else  does 
the  simple  copula  bind  a  noun  to  the  divine  name. 

At  a  glance  we  see  that  the  statement  contemplates  God  in 
his  relations  with  other  beings.  I^ove  is  a  matter  of  relations 
and  does  not  exist  outside  of  them,  for  it  implies  two,  lover 
and  beloved.  Even  when  we  speak  of  self-love,  we  mean 
that  the  self  is  counted  twice,  once  as  loving  and  once  as 
loved.  We  know  no  love  except  where  there  are  two,  and  to 
say  that  God  is  love  is  to  place  him  in  thought  over  against 
beings  who  are  objects  of  his  love.  This  natural  meaning 
is  the  meaning  in  the  context,  where  the  thought  moves  in  the 
region  not  of  abstractions  but  of  concrete  facts.  We  might 
think  that  we  must  find  the  writer’s  meaning  in  the  remote 
depths  of  solitary  divine  existence.  Because  the  word  “is” 
is  there,  we  might  think  that  we  must  read  a  description  of 
the  essence  of  the  Godhead,  an  account  of  what  God  is  in 
himself,  apart  from  all  relations.  But  in  the  context  the 


LOVE 


87 


writer  offers  the  God  whose  love  he  is  affirming  as  example 
and  inspiration  of  love  to  people  of  the  common  life,  who 
know  one  another  face  to  face  and  must  show  their  love  in 
works  of  helpfulness.  ^‘God  is  love,  and  he  that  abideth  in 
love  abideth  in  God,  and  God  abideth  in  him.  .  .  .  We 
love,  because  he  first  loved  us.  If  a  man  say,  I  love  God,  and 
hateth  his  brother,  he  is  a  liar’^  (1  Jn.  iv.  16-20).  These  are 
words  of  a  seer,  but  he  is  not  gazing  into  the  depths  of  God 
to  describe  something  not  revealed  in  relations  or  in  works : 
he  is  rather  declaring  what  he  beholds  when  he  gazes  into 
the  face  of  God  revealed  in  Christ.  God  is  revealed  in  love. 
Love  is  so  characteristic  of  him  in  the  characters  in  which  he 
is  best  known  to  men  that  we  do  not  know  him  aright  except 
as  we  discern  the  love  that  makes  him  what  he  is  to  us. 
God  is  love  in  act:  look  at  God  and  you  look  at  love.  God 
is  love”  differs  little  in  meaning  from  ^‘God  is  lover”;  and 
yet  there  is  a  depth  and  largeness  in  the  phrase  that  the  sub¬ 
stitute  does  not  contain.  We  can  scarcely  put  this  larger 
thought  into  language  of  definition,  and  may  well  be  thankful 
for  the  richer  and  more  poetic  word  that  stands  upon  the 
sacred  page.  We  may  experiment  by  saying,  “God  is  One 
whose  essential  character  eternally  makes  him  lover,”  or, 
“  God  has  love  for  the  very  atmosphere  of  his  life  and  doing,” 
or,  “God  is  so  identified  with  love  that  it  is  his  very  self.” 
All  these  mean  that  we  know  God  as  love,  and  do  not  rightly 
know  him  otherwise.  The  more  truly  we  know  him  the 
more  shall  we  know  him  in  this  character.  Love  is  no  acci¬ 
dent,  but  an  essential  in  God. 

According  to  the  New  Testament,  the  proof  and  measure  of 
the  love  of  God  is  the  gift  of  his  Son  for  the  world,  with  all 
that  it  implies.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  gift,  and  the  passion  of 
redemptive  love  burns  in  what  he  was  and  what  he  did.  The 
cross  of  Christ,  symbol  of  redemptive  sacrificing,  is  the  symbol 
of  the  love  of  God  himself.  “  God  commendeth  his  own  love 
toward  us,  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for 
us”  (Rom.  V.  8).  The  familiar  saying  that  begins  with  “  God 
so  loved  the  world”  (Jn.  iii.  16)  contains  these  thoughts:  God 


88 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


holds  the  world  dear  to  himself;  he  desires  possession  of  the 
world  in  the  fellowship  with  himself  for  which  it  was  created; 
he  cannot  bear  that  it  should  perish,  or  be  morally  corrupted 
to  its  ruin;  he  gives  his  Son,  which  is  to  give  himself,  that  it 
may  not  thus  perish  but  may  become  his  own.  This  is  to 
say,  in  such  terms  as  we  have  used  before,  that  God  prizes 
the  world,  longs  to  possess  it  in  fellowship,  feels  toward  it  the 
impulse  of  self-devotion,  and  freely  sacrifices  for  its  sake; 
and  this  is  the  work  of  love.  In  the  Christian  doctrine,  God 
is  the  Being  of  whom  such  love  is  the  natural  and  true 
expression. 

What  does  this  saying  imply  as  to  the  extent  or  breadth  of 
the  love  that  it  records?  What  is  the  world,  which  God  is 
said  to  have  loved  thus  ?  Doubtless  it  is  mankind,  the  sum 
of  humanity.  *‘The  world”  is  not  something  less  than  this. 
Here  we  come  upon  one  of  the  many  illustrations  of  the 
oneness  of  the  relation  of  God  to  all.  God  is  One  and  all 
else  is  another,  and  his  relation  to  all  that  is  not  himself  is  one 
relation,  in  the  sense  that  it  is  expressive  of  one  character. 
“  God  so  loved  the  world,”  and  loves  it  all  and  always.  But 
the  fact  that  it  is  love  adds  its  touch  of  definiteness  and 
beauty  to  our  thought  of  the  world-wide  relation.  The 
object  of  this  affection  is  not  merely  humanity  as  a  total, 
weighed  in  the  balances  of  judgment  and  found  valuable. 
It  is  humanity  regarded  as  lovable  and  able  to  make  response 
to  love.  But  a  race  that  can  respond  to  love  is  a  race  of 
persons.  Humanity  as  a  mass  cannot  love  God  in  return,  but 
human  persons  can:  hence  the  world  that  God  loves  is  a 
world  of  persons,  a  race  whose  members  are  spiritually  akin 
to  God,  and  therefore  dear  to  him.  It  is  manldnd  as  a  whole, 
but  as  a  whole  m.ade  up  of  persons  capable  of  returning  love. 
To  this  “world,”  the  love  of  God  is  both  universal  and  par¬ 
ticular.  The  Christian  doctrine  not  merely  affirms  the  nega¬ 
tive  truth  that  God  “hateth  nothing  that  he  hath  made” 
(Collect  Ash  Wednesday) :  it  declares  that  God  loves  all  ex¬ 
istence,  and  is  love  in  his  relations  with  all  beings  who  are 
capable  of  loving. 


LOVE 


89 


As  to  the  manner  in  which  God^s  love  goes  forth  in  action 
to  men,  it  is  portrayed  in  the  New  Testament  most  worthily 
of  God.  Love  goes  forth  freely.  Paul,  the  earliest  great 
expositor  of  God  in  Christ,  delights  to  speak  of  the  love  of 
God  under  the  name  of  Grace.  In  his  representation  of  it, 
grace  is  the  characteristic  form  of  the  love  of  God  as  it  appears 
in  the  Christian  gospel.  Grace  is  the  suitable  expression,  in 
such  a  world  as  this,  of  the  fact  that  God  is  love.  Grace  is 
helpful  love,  viewed  especially  as  free  and  unpurchased.  It 
simply  gives.  In  Paul’s  field  of  thought,  with  its  vivid  re¬ 
membrances  of  a  legal  system  of  life,  grace  stands  opposed  to 
works,  or  meritorious  deeds,  regarded  as  claiming  to  deserve 
something  at  the  hands  of  God.  It  is  Paul’s  joyful  convic¬ 
tion  that  grace,  the  divine  principle,  stands  opposed  to  all 
forms  of  the  idea  of  merit.  In  God’s  gospel,  he  says,  the 
idea  of  obtaining  the  divine  favour  by  righteousness  of  law, 
or  meritorious  doings,  has  no  place.  It  was  never  a  true 
idea,  and  now  is  revealed  the  method  of  grace,  or  kindness 
undeserved,  by  which  the  infinite  goodness  freely  grants  the 
needful  gifts  to  the  unworthy.  No  question  of  deserv¬ 
ing  arises:  that  is  not  the  principle  that  rules  (Rom.  iii. 
20,  fj:  iv.  4-5).  The  love  of  God  is  an  affection  whose 
nature  is  to  give,  and  free  grace  in  Christ  is  simply  the 
normal  utterance  of  such  freely-giving  love  in  such  a  world 
as  this. 

The  doctrine  of  free  grace  is  the  Pauline  commentary  upon 
the  Johannine  word  that  God  is  love.  That  word  is  Johan- 
nine,  and  yet  it  is  Paul  who  has  sung  the  psalm  of  love,  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinthians.  It  is  human  love 
divinely  inspired  and  raised  to  heavenly  quality  that  he  has 
in  mind;  and  yet  we  may  doubt  whether  he  would  have  sung 
a  song  of  praise  so  rich  and  noble,  if  his  heart  had  not  been 
praising  the  love  of  God  himself.  Certainly  Paul  would  say 
from  the  heart  that  God’s  love  “suffereth  long  and  is  kind, 
envieth  not,  vaunteth  not  itself,  seeketh  not  its  own,  is  not 
provoked,  taketh  not  account  of  evil,  beareth  all  things,  be- 
lieveth  all  things,  hopeth  all  things,  endureth  all  things  ” 


90 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


(1  Cor.  xiii.).  He  represents  God  as  dealing  in  this  spirit 
with  sinful  and  needy  men,  and  his  God  is  a  God  of  such 
love  as  this. 

The  idea  of  free  grace  is  the  idea  of  independent  and 
original  love  in  God,  called  out  indeed  by  its  objects,  but  hav' 
ing  its  source  in  himself.  “He  first  loved  us’^  (1  Jn.  iv.  19). 
This  has  always  been  of  the  substance  of  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine.  The  Christian  preaching  has  been  wont  to  declare  that 
the  word  “whosoever”  corresponds  to  an  open  door  for  all 
souls  that  will  claim  the  privilege  of  faith,  and  has  thereby 
represented  the  love  of  God  as  one  love,  simple,  straightfor¬ 
ward,  universal,  equal  toward  all  mankind,  due  to  his  own 
nature.  But  the  doctrine  of  divine  love  has  often  been  held  in 
inconsistency,  blended  with  conceptions  that  neutralized  much 
of  its  power.  Sometimes  the  universal  breadth  of  divine  love 
has  even  been  denied  by  Christians;  and  often  the  simple 
doctrine  of  free  grace  has  been  robbed  of  power  by  ideas  that 
spring  from  that  legalism  to  which  the  heart  of  man  is  so 
prone.  It  may  be  truly  said  that  the  characteristic  Christian 
truth  of  free  grace  has  always  been  intended  in  the  Christian 
doctrine,  but  it  must  also  be  said  that  it  has  never  fully  come 
to  its  own,  having  often  been  held  in  bondage  by  ideas  that 
contradicted  its  message  so  worthy  of  God. 

For  the  injustice  that  has  been  done  to  the  love  of  God  in 
the  historical  Christian  doctrine  there  may  be  many  reasons, 
but  one  deep-lying  cause  is  very  evident.  Justice  has  not 
been  done  to  the  truth  that  love  is  among  the  fundamental, 
essential  and  eternal  elements  in  the  divine  nature.  This 
truth  has  been  universally  accepted  in  Christian  doctrine, 
and  preaching,  prayer  and  praise  have  been  filled  with  it, 
and  yet  the  due  effect  of  it  has  not  been  wrought.  Love  has 
been  treated  too  much  as  a  special  manifestation,  due  to  the 
will  of  God  and  designed  for  certain  purposes,  and  too  little 
as  the  true  manifestation  of  his  very  self. 

Such  a  mistake  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  Truth  so  great 
as  that  of  the  essential  love  of  God,  thrown  out  into  the 


LOVE 


91 


living  and  thinking  world,  could  not  at  once  make  all  its 
meaning  manifest  or  its  power  effective.  It  must  come  grad¬ 
ually  to  its  place  in  thought  and  life.  We  may  remember  that 
it  is  only  on  the  latest  pages  of  the  New  Testament  that  we 
find  that  supreme  generalization  of  its  spiritual  revealing, 
“  God  is  love.’’  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  great 
word  was  ever  spoken  by  the  Master :  it  came  as  the  distilled 
essence  of  his  revelation  in  life  and  death,  in  word  and  deed. 
But  we  observe  how  late  it  came — only  after  the  truth  as  it  is 
in  Jesus  had  had  time  to  do  its  work.  It  came,  too,  not  from 
among  the  people,  but  from  the  heart  of  the  most  mystical 
and  far-seeing  Christian  of  his  day.  It  came  as  a  verdict 
from  experience,  reflection  and  spiritual  vision,  and  it  was 
long  in  coming  forth. 

The  recording  that  “God  is  love”  marked  an  era  in  Chris¬ 
tian  understanding.  Thoughtlessly  we  might  regard  it  as 
the  end  of  an  era,  but  it  was  the  beginning,  not  the  end. 
That  truth,  once  made  current,  must  needs  become  a  theme 
of  long  reflection  and  inquiry.  What  does  it  mean  ?  How 
much  does  it  imply  ?  What  fruit  should  it  yield  in  practice 
and  what  in  doctrine  ?  What  should  it  expel  from  among  the 
thoughts  of  Christians,  and  what  should  it  introduce  ?  This 
truth,  which  is  the  specialty  and  glory  of  the  Christian  faith, 
is  the  most  revolutionary  of  truths.  When  once  it  has  taken 
its  place,  religion  that  was  not  dominated  by  its  quality  is 
something  that  must  be  exultantly  left  behind.  It  is  a  germi- 
nant  doctrine,  too,  not  a  stationary  one,  and  its  influence  must 
grow  while  men  learn  through  trustful  and  adoring  commun¬ 
ion  with  the  God  whom  it  proclaims.  Evidently  the  gracious 
revolution  that  this  truth  will  work  must  be  long  on  the  way. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  centuries  must  pass  before  the 
questions  just  now  mentioned  could  be  thought  through. 

Accordingly,  Christian  thought  has  been  busy  upon  the 
love  of  God  in  all  generations,  with  the  success  and  the 
inadequacy  that  always  belong  to  its  work.  Some  of  the 
inadequacies  and  misconceptions  are  easily  understood.  For 
one  thing,  the  very  preciousness  of  the  Christian  gospel  has 


92 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


had  its  influence  in  limiting  the  conception  of  the  divine  love. 
The  Christian  revelation  has  been  so  unique  and  glorious  in 
the  esteem  of  Christians  that  they  have  been  tempted  to  see 
but  little  of  the  divine  love  in  anything  else.  As  for  all  the 
rest,  this  supreme  manifestation  of  love  has  brought  it  to  pass 
that  love  was  regarded  as  only  a  minor  element  in  the  relations 
of  God  with  his  creation  as  a  whole,  and  with  the  world  out¬ 
side  of  Christianity.  It  has  been  common  to  say  that  God 
in  Christ  is  love;  and  by  God  in  Christ  was  meant  God  in  his 
dealings  with  those  who  have  heard  of  Christ  or  are  to  hear 
of  him.  In  his  relations  with  mankind  as  a  whole,  and  with 
the  non-Christian  parts  of  it,  there  was  righteousness,  there 
was  inflexible  justice,  and  there  was  general  providential 
kindness,  but  love  was  reserved  for  those  who  saw  it  in  the 
face  of  Christ;  in  which  it  was  implied  that  love  was  so  special 
an  element  in  God^s  activity  that  it  could  be  thus  reserved  for 
a  part  of  his  creatures.  Because  the  doctrine  or  announce¬ 
ment  of  the  divine  love  was  so  glorious  a  specialty  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  it  has  almost  seemed  that  the  love  itself  must  be  a 
specialty  also.  Since  love  was  manifested  as  God^s  special 
means  of  accomplishing  certain  results  for  a  certain  part  of 
his  creatures,  his  love  itself  has  been  estimated  according 
to  the  extent  of  what  it  appeared  to  be  accomplishing,  or 
according  to  the  diameter  of  the  circle  of  its  influence  in  the 
world.  Thus  the  universal  free  gospel  of  God  has  been  the 
means  of  teaching  to  many  of  his  children  a  partialistic  doc¬ 
trine  of  his  love.  It  has  been  accepted  as  a  first  postulate  in 
doctrine  that  love  intended  its  highest  blessing  for  only  a 
part  of  men;  and  such  a  view  must  set  limits  upon  the  con¬ 
ception  that  could  be  entertained  of  the  love  itself.  When 
the  aim  and  end  of  love  is  held  to  be  the  benefit  of  only  a  part, 
the  love  may  indeed  be  felt  to  be  of  deep  intensity  and  power, 
heart-winning  and  heart-breaking  to  those  to  whom  it  is 
given,  but  no  such  view  of  the  matter  assigns  to  love  its  place 
as  eternal  and  essential  in  the  nature  of  God.  That  God  is 
love  is  too  large  a  truth  for  doctrines  of  partialism  in  the 
divine  interest  and  activity. 


LOVE 


93 


Against  all  such  limitations  upon  the  love  of  God  stands 
the  great  Christian  doctrine,  which  is  Christian  as  being  true 
if  Christ  is  a  true  revealer,  and  true  since  no  other  doctrine 
can  be  true  of  the  perfect  God.  The  God  whom  Jesus  teaches 
us  to  know  is  one  God,  who  stands  in  one  relation  to  all  that 
is  not  himself.  There  are  many  single  relations  involved, 
but  they  are  all  included  within  this  one  and  influenced  by  its 
character.  In  this  one  relation  God  regards  all  as  his  own, 
since  he  is  the  source  of  all;  and,  doing  justice  to  the  relation 
of  a  Creator,  he  cares  for  all,  and  desires  the  highest  good  of 
all.  Toward  all  spiritual  beings  he  is  truly  represented  by 
that  love  which  passeth  knowledge  in  which  the  Saviour  Jesus 
exhibits  him.  He  desires  for  himself  the  spiritual  fellowship 
of  all  souls,  and  is  impelled  to  do  good  to  all  by  free  self¬ 
giving.  It  is  in  love  that  he  fulfils  all  relations  in  which  he 
stands,  and  without  love  they  could  not  be  fulfilled.  This 
is  the  truth  that  sums  up  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  revela¬ 
tion,  and  no  narrow  doctrine  of  love  can  be  true  of  the  God 
and  Father  of  Jesus.  To  interpret  his  love  in  view  of  what 
we  are  able  to  observe  in  the  world  is  only  a  partial  process 
that  must  mislead  us;  we  go  far  deeper  into  reality  when 
we  dare  to  interpret  what  we  observe  in  the  world  in  the  light 
of  his  love.  Instead  of  judging  that  the  love  of  God  is  no 
greater  than  we  can  perceive  the  gospel  to  be,  we  may  better 
say  that  his  gospel  is  as  great  as  the  love  of  God,  and  the 
love  of  God  is  as  great  as  God  himself.  When  we  learn  how 
much  this  means,  we  shall  be  learning  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus. 

The  full  effect  of  the  truth  that  God  is  love  must  be  allowed 
in  all  statements  concerning  the  relations  that  he  sustains 
to  men.  All  of  them  are  relations  with  beings  whom  he 
loves.  There  are  none  to  whom  he  is  indifferent,  or  whom  he 
regards  without  that  affection  which  is  essential  in  his  char¬ 
acter.  From  the  nature  of  his  love  we  learn  that  the  method 
of  free  grace  in  his  gospel  was  not  arbitrarily  chosen,  or  chosen 
at  all,  since  it  represents  him  as  he  is,  and  is  the  necessary 
•  method  in  all  religion  that  corresponds  to  the  divine  reality. 


94 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Hence  we  are  sure  that  free  grace,  or  genuine  helpful  kindness, 
has  always  gone  forth  from  him  to  men,  in  such  forms  as 
were  available.  Before  its  flow  can  cease,  God  must  be 
changed;  and  it  is  because  he  can  never  change  that  the 
revelation  in  Christ  is  a  trustworthy  revelation.  This  is 
not  the  whole  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God,  or  the  only 
truth  concerning  him.  With  this  other  truths  are  blended 
in  harmony.  But  the  Christian  doctrine,  if  it  is  faithful  to 
the  light  amidst  which  it  arose,  will  certainly  confirm  the  con¬ 
fidence  of  all 

“Who  deemed  that  God  was  love  indeed, 

And  love  creation’s  final  law,” 

for  it  will  discern  as  the  First  and  the  Last  a  God  who  cares 
for  all. 

5.  HOLINESS 

When  we  advance  in  our  contemplation  from  the  Love  of 
God  to  his  Holiness,  we  take  but  a  short  and  natural  step. 
Love  is  that  attitude  of  unselfish  and  earnest  care  for  all 
beings  in  which  God  fulfils  his  relations  toward  them,  and 
Holiness  is  that  devotion  to  the  highest  and  worthiest  elements 
in  moral  existence  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  able,  and  certain, 
to  fulfil  all  relations  in  the  worthiest  manner.  Love  is  the 
gracious  attitude  or  movement  of  the  divine  Being  toward  all 
other  beings,  and  Holiness  is  the  moral  character  by  which 
the  character  of  the  movement  of  Love  is  determined.  And 
when  we  discern  this  moral  character,  it  is  a  glorious,  radiant 
and  searching  purity,  a  positive  goodness  incomparable, 
which  is  to  all  sin  and  wrong  what  the  sun  is  to  the  night. 

Like  many  another  idea  of  high  significance,  the  idea  of 
holiness  began  in  far  less  significant  form.  It  seems  at  first 
to  have  been  the  idea  of  the  divine:  that  was  holy  which 
belonged  to  the  god.  His  possessions  were  holy  because  they 
belonged  to  him,  and  certain  acts  and  ceremonies  were  holy 
because  they  had  to  do  with  him.  So  there  were  holy  per-  • 


HOLINESS 


95 


sons,  times  and  places,  so  called  because  they  were  claimed 
by  him.  Customs  and  practices  were  holy  when  they  were 
parts  or  instruments  of  his  worship.  Solemnity,  awe  and 
reverence  before  the  god  imparted  to  such  objects  a  peculiar 
quality:  they  were  pervaded  by  his  atmosphere,  and  men 
gave  them  something  of  the  reverence  that  they  gave  to  him. 
What  was  their  own  was  not  holy,  but  the  god  and  his  posses¬ 
sions  were  gathered  in  a  class  apart.  If  the  god  was  not  much 
superior  to  men,  the  word  holy  had  but  slight  ethical  signifi¬ 
cance;  but  so  far  as  religion  was  a  deeply  serious  matter,  it 
grew  in  depth.  That  great  human  experience,  the  joining  of 
morality  and  religion,  is  responsible  for  the  enrichment  of 
the  idea  of  holiness.  In  the  light  of  it  there  appears  to  be 
one  moral  standard  for  human  and  divine.  Men  had  their 
moral  ideals,  such  as  they  were,  developed  in  experience,  and 
goodness  had  a  meaning  to  them;  but  now  it  came  to  be 
perceived  that  goodness  belonged  to  God  as  well  as  to  men, 
and  the  religious  obligation  bound  men  not  only  to  ceremonies 
of  worship  but  also  to  virtue  in  common  life,  and  to  high 
character.  With  this  conviction  came  new  light  upon  the 
moral  difference  between  God  and  men.  God  was  better 
than  men.  He  required  men  to  be  right  because  he  was 
right,  good  because  he  was  good.  In  him  to  whom  they  were 
already  giving  reverence  there  was  character  that  deserved 
a  better  reverence.  The  awe  that  had  been  awakened  by 
deity  was  now  evoked  by  superior  goodness,  which  called 
the  best  in  men  to  action,  and  condemned  and  shamed  their 
evil. 

This  is  only  a  hint  of  the  principle  on  which  a  long  course 
of  experience  proceeded.  We  may  call  the  enhancing  of  the 
idea  of  divine  holiness  a  natural  process,  if  by  that  we  mean 
a  process  natural  to  a  world  where  God  is  making  himself 
known.  It  is  a  work  of  God,  wrought  in  accordance  with 
his  own  nature  and  that  of  men,  in  pursuance  of  his  con¬ 
stant  purpose  to  be  known.  High  quality  in  God  does 
not  come  to  be  believed  in,  we  may  be  sure,  without  his 
knowing  it,  or  apart  from  his  self-revealing  will.  We  may 


96 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


call  the  process  natural  or  supernatural,  according  to  our  use 
of  terms,  but  for  true  representation  of  it  we  may  need 
something  different  from  the  meaning  of  either,  as  they  are 
commonly  employed. 

On  the  way  to  the  Christian  doctrine,  the  idea  of  holiness 
passed  through  both  the  stages  that  have  been  mentioned. 
Both  are  traceable  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  the  glory  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  the  strong  revealing  of  the  ethical  idea  of 
the  divine  holiness.  “  The  Lord  our  God  is  holy  ”  (Ps.  xcix.  9) 
may  indeed  have  meant  at  first,  “Our  God  is  apart  from 
us,  and  we  must  stand  in  awe  before  him  but  it  came  to 
mean,  “Our  God  is  infinitely  better  than  we,  in  the  very 
character  that  we  know  we  ought  to  bear.’’  The  outward  in¬ 
stitutions  of  the  law,  centring  in  a  sacred  place  with  holy  or¬ 
ders  of  men  and  instruments  of  worship,  laid  emphasis  upon 
the  separateness  of  God  from  men  and  the  holiness  of  what¬ 
ever  belonged  especially  to  him.  The  prophets,  and  the  more 
ethical  parts  of  the  law,  laid  their  stress  upon  the  high  char¬ 
acter  of  God,  glorious  above,  and  searching  and  exacting  in 
human  affairs.  The  psalmists,  too,  had  learned  something  of 
the  higher  holiness,  and  knew  it  both  in  penitence  and  in 
exultation.  As  knowledge  of  God  became  truer,  his  holiness 
was  more  and  more  identified  with  his  moral  excellence, 
offered  to  men  as  standard  and  inspiration  of  goodness.  This 
was  the  growing  thought  in  that  religious  life  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  entered  most  congenially  into  the  teaching 
of  our  Lord. 

When  we  come  to  Jesus,  we  find  him  taking  up  the  highest 
conception  of  God  into  the  presence  of  which  he  was  born, 
and  bringing  it  enriched  and  enlarged  into  his  own  life  and 
teaching.  So  far  as  the  records  testify,  holiness  was  not  much 
upon  his  lips,  but  it  was  always  in  his  thought.  Never  in  the 
Synoptics,  and  only  once  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (Jn.  xvii.  11), 
is  he  reported  to  have  spoken  of  God  as  holy.  Nevertheless, 
what  he  did  was  precisely  to  exhibit  God  as  holy,  with  search¬ 
ing  and  uplifting  power.  And  when  his  influence  had  gone 
forth  into  the  world  and  his  followers  were  viewing  God  in  his 


HOLINESS 


97 


light,  they  beheld  a  holy  God,  unspeakably  glorious  in  good¬ 
ness,  urging  his  goodness  upon  men  as  the  standard  for  their 
life.  Like  all  his  teaching,  his  presentation  of  the  divine 
holiness  was  practical,  not  theoretical:  he  offers  no  abstract 
doctrine  of  what  holiness  consists  in,  but  he  does  what  is 
better  far,  he  makes  such  an  impression  of  the  holiness  of 
God  as  was  never  known  elsewhere.  Indeed,  the  Christian 
gift  in  relation  to  the  holiness  of  God  is  rather  an  impression 
than  a  doctrine,  and  only  from  the  impression  can  the  doctrine 
be  rightly  drawn. 

Holiness  in  God  appears  in  two  lights,  somewhat  differing 
yet  perfectly  consistent  with  each  other.  In  a  sinful  world  it 
is  natural  that  the  divine  holiness  should  first  be  thought  of 
in  contrast  with  the  ever-abounding  evil.  That  God  is  unlike 
men,  having  in  him  nothing  of  the  evil  that  is  so  great  in  them, 
is  the  first  impression  when  it  is  said  that  he  is  holy.  Holiness 
is  purity,  freedom  from  stain,  spotlessness  of  character. 
He  stands  by  himself  in  human  thought  and  reverence,  as 
the  One  in  whom  whatever  is  contrasted  to  perfect  good  has 
no  existence.  This  is  the  negative  aspect  of  the  divine 
holiness,  which  is  here  the  absence  of  all  that  ought  not  to  be. 
But  evidently  such  a  view  of  God  is  not  complete,  or  finally 
sufficient.  Neither  doctrine  nor  love  can  be  content  with 
telling  what  God  is  not,  even  though  the  negation  be  so  glo¬ 
rious  a  one  as  this.  We  have  not  done  justice  to  the  idea  of 
holiness  until  we  have  affirmed  the  presence  in  God  of  all 
possible  goodness  of  every  kind,  all  moral  excellence  that  can 
be  conceived,  and  more  if  there  can  be  more,  in  fulness  of 
degree  and  perfect  freedom  of  operation.  Evil  can  be  absent 
from  a  moral  being  only  through  the  presence  of  sufficient 
good,  and  in  the  holy  God  every  form  and  mode  and  part  of 
character  is  filled  with  actual  and  effective  goodness.  Instead 
of  being  merely  the  negation  of  evil,  his  holiness  is  the  positive 
goodness  that  renders  evil  impossible,  and  is  itself  complete 
and  unchangeable. 

Probably  the  popular  idea  of  the  holiness  of  God  is  the 


98 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


former  of  these,  rather  than  the  latter.  Holiness  would 
commonly  be  defined  as  purity,  sinlessness,  a  character 
without  stain.  That  this  is  a  negative  conception,  and 
therefore  an  incomplete  one,  is  undeniable;  but  that  it  is  an 
unworthy  or  ineffective  conception  is  very  far  from  being 
true.  It  is  perfectly  worthy  to  think  of  God  as  unlike  our¬ 
selves,  as  free  from  our  evil,  and  in  profoundest  contrast  to 
all  that  our  moral  judgment  disapproves.  This  as  we  have 
said  is  a  natural  first  thought  about  his  holiness,  and  of  the 
two  conceptions  it  is  evidently  the  easier  to  obtain.  As  it  is 
a  natural  first  stage,  so  it  is  probably  a  necessary  first  stage 
in  the  thought  of  moral  perfection,  conceived  in  a  sinful 
world.  And  it  is  a  thought  that  has  promise.  If  we  can 
clearly  think  of  a  Being  who  has  in  him  absolutely  no  moral 
evil,  we  are  far  on  the  way  toward  thinking  of  a  Being  in  whom 
all  goodness  dwells.  It  is  certain,  too,  that  this  negative  idea 
has  vast  power  of  appeal  to  men  in  whom  evil  is  great  and 
strong.  A  God  in  moral  contrast  to  ourselves  is  a  great  fact 
to  encounter.  To  see  that  God  is  unlike  us  in  all  that  we 
know  as  wrong  is  to  obtain  a  vision  of  working  and  effective 
holiness  that  has  value  unspeakable.  If  evil  is  not  in  God  at 
all,  that  means  that  he  and  it  are  opposites,  and  that  with  all 
the  force  of  heart  and  will  he  must  be  against  it;  and  thus 
through  the  contrast  the  holiness  comes  at  once  to  be  counted 
as  a  militant  fact  with  which  every  sinful  being  must  deal. 
Militant  purity  is  a  mighty  thing  to  believe  in,  and  a  tremen¬ 
dous  thing  to  live  with:  it  is  an  infinitely  beneficent  thing,  but 
none  the  less  is  it  a  serious  and  solemn  fact.  Sin  stirs  the 
conscience,  and  teaches  the  lesson  of  its  own  dreadfulness; 
and  when  it  has  been  made  plain  that  God  has  in  him  abso¬ 
lutely  nothing  of  this  which  is  so  horrible  in  us,  it  is  evident 
that  sin  has  a  tremendous  enemy  who  must  be  taken  into  the 
account.  For  one  who  is  making  evil  his  own,  the  purity  of 
God  brings  rebuke,  condemnation,  and  the  certainty  of  dan¬ 
ger.  That  which  is  not  in  God  cannot  prosper  in  his  world, 
even  as  it  ought  not  to  prosper  anywhere.  The  original  and 
sovereign  purity  seals  the  doom  of  sin.  But  it  also  brings 


HOLINESS 


99 


hope  and  cheer  to  all  good.  If  any  man  has  begun  to  hate 
his  own  evil,  he  may  take  courage  when  he  knows  that  God 
has  nothing  like  it  in  himself.  One  who  welcomes  even  a 
small  territory  of  clean  and  worthy  life  in  his  own  being  may 
rejoice  to  know  that  the  pure  space  in  his  life  is  like  God, 
in  whom  no  evil  dwells.  He  who  is  eager  in  a  strife  against 
evil  of  any  kind  may  be  the  more  eager  and  hopeful  when  it 
appears  that  in  all  such  striving  he  is  on  the  Lord’s  side. 

In  fact,  perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  more 
negative  idea  of  God’s  holiness,  much  as  it  may  be  criticised 
for  incompleteness,  is  the  main  working  idea  of  holiness  in  a 
sinful  world.  The  purity  of  God — it  is  a  glorious  and 
powerful  thought,  and  it  is  on  the  stainlessness  of  the  divine 
character  that  the  emphasis  in  popular  thoughts  of  holiness 
is  likely  to  rest. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  true  that  a  negative  description  of  holiness 
is  not  a  complete  account  of  it,  and  the  doctrine  of  holiness 
is  at  the  deepest  a  doctrine  of  absolute  and  perfect  moral 
excellence.  Holiness  is  not  made  by  omissions,  but  by  reali¬ 
ties  that  fill  out  character  and  life.  There  is  in  God  a  char¬ 
acter  that  is  the  perfection  of  character:  this  is  the  great  an¬ 
nouncement  of  the  Christian  doctrine.  And  what  do  we 
mean  by  that? 

Here  at  first  look  it  seems  that  we  can  never  do  more  than 
stand  adoring  at  the  mystery  of  God,  for  we  know  that  the 
inner  being  of  God  is  beyond  our  exploring,  and  must  remain 
unsearched.  It  is  the  character  of  God  in  himself  that  we 
desire  to  apprehend  when  we  seek  to  define  his  holiness; 
but  of  God  in  himself,  apart  from  such  manifestations  of  him 
as  are  made  in  his  relations  with  other  beings,  we  can  dis¬ 
cover  nothing.  How  then  shall  we  tell*  what  his  holiness 
includes  ?  But  we  have  one  way  of  knowledge  here,  though 
only  one.  The  only  way  by  which  we  can  enter  that  myste¬ 
rious  realm  is  the  way  of  our  own  worthiest  conceptions  of 
what  is  good.  This  path  will  not  lead  us  so  far  as  we  might 
wish  to  go  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  but  we  are  sure  that  it 
leads  us  in  the  right  direction.  All  that  we  can  clearly  say 


100 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


concerning  that  perfect  inner  goodness  of  God  which  we  call 
his  holiness  is,  that  in  it  all  human  ideals  of  good,  of  every 
kind,  find  their  satisfaction  and  are  more  than  satisfied.  All 
goodness  of  which  human  ideals  are  “broken  lights’^  is  there 
complete.  We  are  always  cherishing  our  ideals  of  what  is 
right  and  worthy,  and  of  the  character  that  ought  to  be. 
We  know  they  are  all  imperfect,  and  therefore  we  may  fear 
to  trust  them,  and  think  we  must  have  some  other  guide  in 
forming  our  idea  of  perfect  holiness.  So  we  may  set  out  to 
search  for  some  goodness  that  lies  outside  our  highest  human 
conceptions  of  goodness,  and  suppose  that  we  cannot  know 
God  until  we  have  found  it.  But  the  effort  will  be  in  vain, 
for  we  have  really  no  means  of  imagining  the  perfect  good, 
except  by  carrying  up  toward  perfection  our  living  ideas  of 
imperfect  good.  Jesus  never  taught  us  any  other  way,  nor 
has  the  Christian  doctrine  ever  proclaimed  any  goodness  in 
God  that  was  not  imperfectly  presentable  in  terms  of  our  best 
conceptions.  There  is  literally  no  way  into  that  mysterious 
region  except  the  way  that  our  nature  compels  us  to  travel  in. 
Nor  will  this  way  mislead  us.  The  best  that  we  know  or  can 
imagine  exists  in  God,  and  is  infinitely  bettered  there.  Human 
ideals  of  goodness,  when  their  faults  are  corrected,  their 
narrowness  is  enlarged,  and  their  utmost  is  satisfied,  converge 
in  God,  and  point  to  the  goodness  that  really  lives  in  him. 
They  lie  in  various  fields  of  life,  and  embody  various  forms  of 
virtue,  but  the  variety  only  works  toward  completeness,  and 
in  God  they  all  find  harmonious  fulfilment.  His  positive 
holiness  includes  all  worthy  character  that  is  known  to  human¬ 
ity,  in  degree  never  imagined  by  man :  it  is  of  the  same  kind 
with  human  goodness,  but  in  infinite  perfection.  Our 
thoughts  of  goodness  are  poor  and  faulty,  but  they  are  of 
noble  kinship,  for  they  rise  to  God  himself,  and  in  him  is  a 
character  that  corresponds  to  them  while  it  rises  far  above 
their  farthest  height. 

Here  dawns  upon  us  the  inconceivable  magnitude  of  holi¬ 
ness  in  the  character  of  God.  What  has  just  been  said  is 


HOLINESS 


101 


enough  to  show  that  his  holiness  is  no  single  form  of  excel¬ 
lence,  no  single  attribute  in  a  list  of  divine  virtues.  Since  it 
fills  and  satisfies  all  our  ideals  of  goodness,  it  must  be  not  so 
much  an  attribute  as  a  character.  It  is  no  fragment  of 
goodness,  no  one  side  of  perfection:  it  includes  goodness  of 
every  kind,  and  is  perfection.  The  name  holiness,  instead  of 
specifying  one  of  God’s  qualities,  sets  forth  his  moral  perfec¬ 
tion  as  a  whole.  God’s  holiness  is  nothing  less  than  the  sum 
of  his  goodness,  the  glorious  fulness  of  his  moral  excellence. 
Yet  even  language  so  lofty  as  this  falls  short  of  the  descriptive 
power  that  would  convey  the  impression  of  what  holiness  is. 
In  the  mention  of  it,  from  the  Christian  point  of  understand¬ 
ing,  there  is  suggestion  of  a  radiance,  a  forthshining  glory, 
all  unutterable  in  human  terms,  of  which  we  may  humbly 
record  our  living  sense,  and  to  which  we  can  do  justice  only 
by  lowly  and  exultant  adoration. 

Holiness  is  the  moral  perfection  of  God;  and  its  compre¬ 
hensive  character  is  set  in  its  place  in  the  Christian  doctrine 
by  the  statement  that  we  have  already  made  concerning  his 
fulfilment  of  his  relations  with  other  beings.  It  is  in  holiness, 
we  have  said,  that  he  fulfils  those  relations,  or  does  what  they 
require.  They  are  all  included  in  the  beneficent  sweep  of 
love,  and  the  fulfilment  of  them  all  is  dominated  by  the  char¬ 
acter  of  holiness.  It  is  because  he  is  holy  that  God  can  do 
justice  to  all  relations  in  which  he  stands,  and  be  toward  all 
what  God  ought  to  be.  Evidently,  to  say  this  is  to  identify 
holiness  with  universal  perfection  in  character.  Only  to  the 
most  comprehensive  and  perfect  goodness  could  such  a  posi¬ 
tion  and  rank  be  given.  It  is  right  to  say  that  the  holiness 
of  God  is  the  moral  excellence  by  virtue  of  which  he  worthily 
fills  his  part  in  every  relation  that  he  bears  to  other  beings. 

Since  the  holy  God  is  thus  fulfilling  his  relations  to  other 
existence,  the  moral  significance  of  the  universe  is  sufficiently 
accounted  for.  Of  the  universe,  we  say,  for  though  we  are 
acquainted  only  with  the  world,  we  know  that  the  universe 
is  the  real  unit,  and  that  one  significance  must  pervade  it  all. 
Moral  significance  in  the  universe  means  that  intelligent  life 


102 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


within  the  universe  is  always  moral :  wherever  there  are  beings 
possessed  of  moral  powers,  there  exists  a  holiness  for  them 
to  receive  as  the  standard  of  their  moral  character.  It  means 
also  that  the  career  of  the  universe  as  a  whole  is  certain  to  be 
directed  with  reference  to  moral  ends.  With  a  God  of  holi¬ 
ness  in  all  and  over  all,  both  these  things  must  be  so :  life  has 
moral  significance  to  every  soul,  and  existence  has  moral 
significance  for  the  universe  itself.  It  is  by  such  administra¬ 
tion  that  the  holy  God  fulfils  his  relation  to  the  universe  as  a 
whole,  and  to  the  moral  beings  whom  he  has  brought  to  exist 
within  it.  To  the  universal  moral  significance  the  holiness 
of  God  is  the  key. 

In  fulfilling  his  relation  toward  men,  the  holy  God  does 
his  part  by  holding  forth  his  own  character  as  the  standard 
for  theirs.  We  may  say  that  in  practice  his  holiness  is  his 
morality  in  dealing  with  men,  or  his  insistence  upon  the  moral 
element  in  life.  By  virtue  of  it  he  places  moral  meanings  at 
the  front,  and  keeps  them  there;  he  deals  with  men  as  capable 
of  good  and  evil,  right  and  wrong;  he  administers  their 
destiny  on  moral  grounds.  This  he  does,  as  we  shall  see 
more  fully  in  another  connection,  by  his  gift  of  moral  nature 
to  men,  by  perpetual  communication  between  his  own  spirit 
and  theirs,  and  by  the  gradual  self-manifestation  by  which 
he  gradually  brings  more  and  more  of  this  great  influence  into 
the  world.  Under  his  administration  it  is  possible  for  men 
also  to  be  holy,  and  the  holy  God  lays  emphasis  upon  the 
matters  that  are  essential  to  the  making  of  holy  men.  He 
insists  that  they  too  shall  set  their  affection  and  will  where  his 
are  set,  upon  the  moral  aspect  of  their  life.  In  all  human 
experience,  whether  high  or  low  in  grade,  there  is  found  an 
element  of  moral  exactingness:  there  is  an  inward  claim  and 
an  upward  call.  It  may  be  definite  or  vague,  and  it  may 
suggest  now  more  and  now  less  of  the  good  that  men  need  to 
do,  for  these  things  depend  upon  conditions  that ‘vary;  but 
the  moral  exaction  is  nowhere  wholly  wanting  in  the  life  of 
men.  This  element  in  life  is  the  counterpart  of  the  holiness 
of  God  with  whom  men  have  to  do.  It  is  the  claim  of  his 


HOLINESS 


103 


character  upon  theirs.  Because  men  are  living  in  the  world 
of  a  holy  God,  therefore  it  is  that  their  life  is  framed  upon  an 
ethical  plan,  and  into  every  day’s  living  there  comes  some¬ 
thing  of  the  reasonable  demand  of  the  divine  perfection. 

This  demand,  as  accords  with  the  comprehensive  nature  of 
divine  holiness,  applies  to  every  part  of  human  life  and  action. 
It  has  often  been  thought  that  it  is  in  religion  that  men  have 
to  do  with  God,  wherefore  the  special  rites  and  ceremonies 
of  religion  have  been  associated  with  him,  and  held  sacred 
for  his  name’s  sake.  Because  they  were  thought  to  be  the 
link  between  man  and  that  supreme  reality  above  to  which 
his  moral  nature  points,  they  have  been  cherished  and  held 
in  the  highest  reverence.  A  better  knowledge  of  the  holiness 
of  God  and  its  claim  upon  men  does  not  take  away  the  value 
of  religious  acts,  but  it  does  deprive  them  of  their  uniqueness 
as  response  to  the  divine  claim.  The  divine  perfection  in¬ 
cludes  the  ideals  of  all  goodness  that  is  possible  to  men,  and 
the  demand  that  it  makes  is  a  demand  for  high  moral  quality 
in  every  part  of  life.  Its  appeal  takes  hold  upon  the  conscience, 
and  the  conscience  judges  action  and  character  of  every 
kind.  The  holiness  of  God  calls  for  devotion  to  the  worthiest 
ends  in  everything;  for  morality  belongs  to  no  one  department 
of  life — it  is  of  equal  force  in  all.  His  claim  touches  the 
intellectual  life,  and  the  aesthetic,  and  the  executive,  and  the 
social,  just  as  truly  as  the  religious.  If  the  devotional  and 
ethical  life  stands  related  to  his  all-dominating  holiness,  so 
does  the  artistic,  the  reflective,  the  constructive,  and  whatever 
other  there  may  be.  God  commands  us  in  industry  and  lei¬ 
sure,  in  pleasure  and  in  pain,  as  well  as  in  prayer.  His 
character,  held  out  as  standard  for  ours,  demands  that  among 
our  neighbours  we  be  honest,  righteous,  pure,  diligent,  enter¬ 
prising,  helpful;  that  in  the  work  of  the  intellect  we  think 
clearly  and  distinguish  the  true  from  the  untrue;  that  in 
using  our  {esthetic  faculties  we  disentangle  them  from  the 
appetites  and  passions,  and  make  them  servants  of  the  higher 
life;  that  in  all  executive  work  we  hold  our  practical  powers 
under  intelligence  and  moral  judgment,  do  the  best  work 


104 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


possible  in  its  kind,  and  serve  humanity.  All  this,  and  more, 
is  urged  upon  us  as  duty  by  the  holiness  of  God,  or  the  all- 
inclusive  goodness  which  is  the  type  for  all  sound  human 
character.  God  is  one,  and  so  is  our  life,  and  upon  the 
whole  of  our  life  falls  the  comprehensive  claim  of  the  compre¬ 
hensive  holiness. 

This  all-inclusive  claim  of  the  divine  holiness  accords  as 
well  with  the  nature  of  man  as  it  does  with  the  nature  of 
God.  God  cannot  do  otherwise  than  make  it,  and  man 
ought  not  to  do  otherwise  than  honour  it  with  obedience. 
All  that  God’s  claim  requires  is  that  a  man  be  normal.  If 
a  man  is  his  true  self,  he  is  right.  But  the  norm  of  man  is 
found  in  the  soul.  In  the  advancing  animal  life  the  soul  has 
mysteriously  come  forth,  the  marvellous  blossom  of  conscious¬ 
ness,  reason  and  aspiration,  upon  the  ancient  physical  stock. 
It  is  normal  that  the  flower  advance  to  the  fruit  of  which  it  is 
the  promise,  and  the  fruit  is  the  character  worthy  of  such  a 
being.  But  the  character  that  is  worthy  of  a  human  being  is 
the  lowly  reproduction  of  the  character  of  God  himself. 
The  normal  character  for  man  is  identical  with  the  actual 
character  of  God — save  that  the  human  must  always  remain 
within  the  limits  of  the  human,  and  can  never  equal  the  divine. 
When  that  holiness  which  gives  moral  significance  to  life 
lays  hold  upon  a  man,  it  calls  him  simply  to  be  himself,  and 
rise  to  the  quality  that  belongs  properly  to  his  nature.  There 
is  no  goodness  in  God  that  is  not  adapted  to  call  out  a  similar 
goodness  in  man,  and  there  is  no  worthy  possibility  in  man 
that  has  not  its  counterpart  in  the  holiness  of  God.  Man  is 
himself,  fulfilling  his  nature,  when  he  responds  to  the  holiness 
of  God  and  takes  it  for  his  own. 

Such  being  the  conditions,  we  see  at  once  why  the  call  of 
divine  holiness  is  so  indescribably  exacting.  How  can  it  be 
otherwise?  There  is  good  reason  why  the  moral  judgment 
should  be  the  most  urgent  thing  with  which  we  have  to  do, 
for  it  is  the  voice  of  God,  bringing  the  message  which  it  is 
life  for  us  to  hear  and  ruin  for  us  to  reject,  and  at  the  same 
time  it  is  the  voice  of  our  own  nature,  solemnly  confirming  the 


HOLINESS 


105 


testimony  of  God.  In  the  quality  of  holiness,  or  the  eternal 
good  for  which  even  we  were  made,  there  is  full  justification 
for  all  the  urgency  of  conscience  and  divine  demand.  Here, 
too,  dwells  the  reason  why  the  universe  was  so  constituted  that 
sin  could  not  prosper:  the  holy  God  could  not  make  a  uni¬ 
verse  in  which  it  could.  It  is  here  also  that  the  retributive 
quality  in  the  divine  holiness  is  found,  and  is  intelligible. 
Holiness  rewards  the  soul  that  does  it  loyal  service,  and 
brings  punishment  upon  the  soul  that  sets  its  claim  at  nought, 
and  all  because  it  could  not  do  otherwise.  From  the  inward 
necessity  in  God  life  is  so  ordered  that  in  holiness  is  welfare 
and  in  sin  is  doom.  So  central  is  the  character  of  God  that 
whatsoever  will  not  revolve  in  loyalty  around  it  is  a  wandering 
star,  for  which  the  blackness  of  darkness  is  reserved.  The 
retributive  quality  in  life  administered  by  God  needs  neither 
apology  nor  explanation,  when  once  the  relation  of  perfect 
goodness  to  both  God  and  man  appears.  The  goodness  that 
makes  God  what  he  is,  is  all  that  can  make  man  what  he 
ought  to  be.  In  such  case  there  is  no  need  of  law  or  decree 
to  establish  a  retributive  order,  for  the  retributive  element  in 
life  is  a  part  of  the  very  fact  of  life  with  holiness  as  normal 
quality. 

Holiness  is  the  exigent  quality  in  the  being  of  God,  and  in 
his  relations  with  men,  and  in  the  very  nature  of  things  it  is  a 
serious  matter  to  have  to  do  with  it.  It  is  a  serious  matter  to 
live  in  a  moral  world,  but  the  seriousness  of  living  in  a  moral 
world  is  concentrated  for  us  in  a  personal  relation,  by  the  fact 
that  we  have  to  do  not  with  an  abstract  morality  but  with  a 
holy  God.  His  existence  makes  seriousness  and  solemnity 
characteristic  of  ours. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  never  to  think  that  the  divine 
holiness  intends  to  sadden  the  universe.  It  constitutes  the 
glory  of  existence,  both  human  and  divine.  That  God  has  in 
himself  in  infinite  fulness  the  qualities,  by  virtue  of  which  he 
can  perfectly  fulfil  and  satisfy  all  relations  in  which  he  has 
placed  himself  to  other  beings;  that  he  bears  the  character 
in  which  all  human  ideals  of  goodness  are  more  than  realized ; 


106 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


that  he  is  holding  forth  this  character,  perfect  in  itself  and 
ideal  for  humanity,  as  the  standard  to  which  he  seeks  to 
bring  his  creation;  that  he  has  wrought  the  claim  of  his  own 
holiness  into  the  structure  of  his  universe,  and  ordained  it  to 
be  a  power  that  makes  for  righteousness  in  all  life:  what 
heights  and  depths  of  spiritual  glory  such  words  as  these  open 
for  our  contemplation!  We  cannot  fathom  the  depth  of 
goodness  that  is  thus  described,  or  exhaust  the  wealth  of 
promise  that  it  opens  for  God’s  creation.  In  such  a  presence 
we  can  only  adore  with  gladness.  The  Christian  doctrine 
affirms  that  such  a  God  exists,  a  God  to  whom  “Holy,  Holy, 
Holy,”  is  the  appropriate  address,  whose  essential  holiness 
surpasses  thought,  and  whose  manifested  holiness  imparts 
solemnity  and  hope  to  all  spiritual  existence.  God’s,  holiness 
has  two  companion-glories,  equally  to  be  rejoiced  in  and 
adored:  one  is  that  it  utterly  condemns  all  choice  and  love 
of  evil,  and  the  other  that  it  stands  as  support  and  encourage¬ 
ment  to  every  loyal  choice  of  good.  It  would  be  a  sad  mistake 
to  think  of  such  a  presence  chiefly  as  threatening  and  sad¬ 
dening.  It  is  threatening  to  evil,  and  saddening  to  unworthy 
hopes  and  joys,  but  the  eternal  holiness  is  the  hope  of  the 
universe,  and  the  enlightening  sun  to  all  eyes  that  discern 
what  true  light  is. 

There  is  no  other  doctrine  of  God  that  contains  any  such 
conception  of  holiness  as  the  Christian  doctrine  offers.  It  is 
a  daring  act  for  Christian  thought  and  faith  to  affirm  such  a 
holiness,  in  the  face  of  all  doubts  and  questions  and  perplexing 
facts,  but  in  so  doing  it  bears  a  testimony  as  beneficent  as  it  is 
courageous.  What  if  the  entire  humanity  could  firmly 
believe  in  a  Being  of  perfect  goodness,  from  whom  all  high 
human  ideals  originate  and  in  whom  they  are  more  than 
realized,  who  makes  good  his  relation  to  all  intelligent  beings 
by  insisting  upon  the  ethical  significance  of  life,  who  destines 
all  goodness  to  success  and  all  evil  to  failure,  and  whose 
character  claims  the  loyalty  of  all  who  live!  What  a  light  in 
darkness  such  a  faith  would  be!  Such  holiness  in  God  sets 


WISDOM 


107 


the  distinction  of  right  and  wrong  on  eternal  foundations, 
justifies  and  sustains  the  moral  meaning  and  importance  of 
life,  and  accounts  for  the  moral  element  that  cannot  be 
eliminated  from  our  thoughts  concerning  destiny.  It  makes 
life  serious  in  every  part,  and  gives  assurance  that  it  can  never 
cease  to  be  serious,  however  long  it  may  continue  and  in 
whatever  world  it  may  be  found.  It  shows  why  life  is  worthy 
to  have  been  brought  forth  by  God  and  to  be  lived  by  men. 
It  establishes  goodness  as  the  determinative  fact  in  all  exist¬ 
ence,  and  shows  why  a  worthily  aspiring  man  is  not  alone,  but 
is  entering  into  the  eternal  fellowship.  The  holiness  of  God 
is  the  everlasting  glory,  in  the  light  of  which  every  reasonable 
being  ought  to  join  in  the  adoring  song,  “Holy,  Holy,  Holy, 
Lord  God  of  hosts.  Heaven  and  earth  are  full  of  thy  glory: 
Glory  be  to  thee,  O  Lord  Most  high”  (Sanctus  of  Holy 
Communion). 


6.  WISDOM 

Wisdom  is  something  that  calls  for  no  abstract  considera¬ 
tion.  It  is  a  practical  thing,  and  is  sufficiently  known  by  its 
works.  Its  nature  is  plain  enough  in  human  affairs,  where 
it  is  known  as  a  broad  and  true  understanding,  which  implies 
power  to  form  the  truest  judgment.  In  personal  life,  it  is 
good  understanding  of  the  relations  in  which  one  stands,  and 
of  matters  with  which  one  has  to  do.  It  is  higher  than 
knowledge.  Knowledge  moves  in  the  intellectual  realm, 
wisdom  rather  in  the  moral,  just  because  it  has  to  do 
with  those  relations  which  give  to  life  its  moral  significance. 
Knowledge  may  deal  with  things  that  have  no  moral 
quality,  and  knowledge  is  not  purposive;  but  wisdom  looks 
to  ends,  and  would  scarcely  even  have  been  named  if  it  had 
not  been  for  that  deeper  significance  which  morality  im¬ 
parts  to  life.  A  wise  man  is  one  who  knows  not  only  what 
things  are,  but  what  they  mean :  he  knows,  too,  how  to  handle 
them,  and  turn  them  to  worthy  use.  In  the  fine  saying 
of  Tennyson,  “Knowledge  comes  but  wisdom  lingers,”  the 


108 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


nature  of  wisdom  is  suggested  as  plainly  by  a  hint  as  it  could 
be  by  a  definition. 

Wisdom,  known  among  men,  belongs  in  perfection  to  God. 
In  God,  so  far  as  we  can  define  it,  wisdom  is  understanding, 
comprehension,  just  knowledge  of  all  things  in  their  true 
significance,  together  with  ability  to  design  the  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  the  ends  that  he  proposes.  It  is  that  comprehensive 
grasp  upon  the  meaning  of  all  relations  in  which  he  stands, 
by  which  God  is  able  to  act  in  view  of  them  and  do  them 
justice.  It  is  knowledge  of  all  things  as  they  are,  with  the 
intelligence  and  coordinative  power  that  can  use  them  for 
ends  beyond  themselves.  With  God  as  with  men,  wisdom 
is  no  mere  intellection,  and  no  mere  consciousness  of  things: 
it  moves  in  the  moral  realm.  If  this  were  not  a  moral  uni¬ 
verse,  knowledge  might  suffice;  but  it  is  a  moral  universe,  and 
in  God  there  is  wisdom. 

Placing  this  quality  in  connection  with  love  and  holiness 
as  they  have  been  set  forth,  we  may  say  that  God’s  wisdom 
is  that  understanding  of  all  things  which  enables  him  to  fulfil 
his  relations  to  other  existence.  It  is  the  perfect  understand¬ 
ing  through  which  he  is  able  to  carry  into  effect  his  holiness 
and  love.  He  does  not  misconceive,  and  has  no  illusions. 
He  knows  all  that  holiness  demands  and  love  requires,  he  is 
conversant  with  the  nature  of  all  beings  with  whom  he  has  to 
do,  and  he  knows  how  to  act  in  view  of  all.  His  wisdom  is 
the  understanding  that  makes  him  master  of  every  situation. 
A  man  may  know  a  situation,  and  understand  the  elements 
with  which  he  is  dealing,  but  not  be  wise  to  know  how  his 
problem  may  be  solved  and  his  purpose  accomplished.  But 
God  has  perfect  wisdom.  He  sees  his  way  through — if  we 
may  speak  thus  after  the  manner  of  rrien — and  knows  that  he 
is  right.  He  has  great  works,  but  no  unsolved  problems. 
He  knows  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  knows  how  the  end 
is  to  be  reached. 

The  Christian  doctrine  affirms  the  perfect  wisdom  of  God. 
All  intelligent  theism  does  the  same,  but  the  Christian  thought 
is  clearest  and  most  positive  in  its  affirmation.  The  doctrine 


WISDOM 


109 


with  which  the  Christian  faith  began  had  this  already  as  an 
inheritance.  In  the  Old  Testament,  God  is  a  Being  who  holds 
all  things  in  his  hands,  and  who  understands  all  so  well  as 
to  be  able  to  conduct  their  existence  aright.  The  exquisite 
personification  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
represents  Wisdom  as  God^s  counsellor  from  the  beginning. 
The  fortunes  of  Israel  may  seem  obscure  and  perplexing, 
but  they  are  conducted  by  One  who  understands.  Over  the 
world  there  reigns  a  wisdom  that  all  men  may  safely  trust. 
There  is  a  controlling  and  coordinating  God.  When  the 
life  of  the  individual  is  considered,  this  is  what  gives  light 
amid  the  mysteries  of  experience — God  understands,  and  is 
able  in  his  wisdom  to  order  all  aright.  Sometimes  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  programme  of  the  divine  wisdom  is 
assumed  to  be  known;  as  when  it  is  held,  in  some  of  the 
Psalms,  that  justice  will  very  soon  be  visibly  done  between 
good  and  bad,  and  God  will  be  vindicated  at  once  in  the  sight 
of  men.  But  these  interpretations  of  the  method  of  wisdom 
prove  to  be  only  tentative;  they  are  expressions  of  faith  that 
was  intelligent  according  to  its  time,  but  they  are  not  finally 
true.  Such  vindication  has  not  been  made.  Yet  whether 
the  operation  of  wisdom  in  the  world  is  immediately  interpret¬ 
able  or  not — and  even  the  trustful  heart  often  finds  it  beyond 
the  reach  of  present  understanding — the  faith  of  the  Old 
Testament  rests  always  in  confidence  that  God  is  wise,  and 
wisdom  governs  all. 

In  the  New  Testament,  also,  the  sufficient  wisdom  of  God 
is  assumed  as  the  sufficient  foundation  of  faith.  Thus  Jesus 
taught,  by  word  and  action.  His  Father  had  perfect  under¬ 
standing,  and  it  was  not  only  safe  but  honourable  and  glorious 
to  follow  the  leading  of  his  wisdom.  The  whole  doctrine  of 
the  divine  wisdom  is  wrapped  up  in  the  words,  ‘‘Your  Father 
knoweth  what  things  ye  have  need  of,  before  ye  ask  him’^ 
(Mt.  vi.  8).  The  divine  Father  knows  all  situations  in 
which  his  children  find  themselves,  he  understands  all  that 
can  influence  their  lives,  and  he  judges  truly  of  all  the  needs 
that  consequently  arise.  This  comprehensive  understanding. 


no 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


too,  is  not  that  of  an  intellect  that  merely  knows;  it  is  the 
understanding  of  a  Father,  whose  knowledge  is  that  of  a 
person  dealing  with  persons,  and  is  instinct  with  sympathy. 
Comprehending  with  a  sympathetic  discernment,  he  can  be 
trusted  concerning  all.  Still  further,  this  discerning  and 
sympathetic  wisdom  is  no  provincial  Imowledge,  but  takes  in 
the  affairs  of  all  men.  No  one  ever  supposed  that  this  rich 
and  helpful  word  of  Jesus  applied  only  to  those  who  first 
heard  it,  or  to  any  other  special  group.  When  he  represented 
religion  as  personal,  consisting  in  the  relation  of  the  soul  to 
its  God  as  the  relation  of  a  child  to  its  father,  he  gave  a 
promise  that  was  universal,  the  same  for  all.  If  to  his  little 
flock  he  could  say,  “Your  Father  knoweth  what  things  ye 
have  need  of  before  ye  ask  him,’’  he  could  say  the  same  to 
all  men.  A  God  whose  wisdom  did  not  embrace  all  would 
not  be  a  wise  God  for  any.  The  field  of  his  knowledge,  in¬ 
sight  and  sympathy  must  be  as  wide  as  the  field  of  moral 
existence,  and  he  must  know  what  every  soul  needs,  without 
petitions  ascending  from  any  quarter  to  inform  him.  By  con¬ 
fidence  in  such  wisdom  any  soul  may  rest  in  certainty  that  God 
knows  what  he  is  doing,  and  is  competent  to  direct  all  affairs. 

In  the  early  Christian  life,  that  deep  and  restful  faith  in 
God  which  proved  so  great  a  blessing  was  in  part  a  confidence 
in  the  divine  wisdom.  Paul  perceived  that  the  more  pro¬ 
foundly  Christ  was  understood,  the  greater  and  more  amazing 
would  be  the  wisdom  of  God  revealed  in  him.  He  saw  also 
that  in  the  administration  of  human  affairs  in  the  interest  of 
salvation  the  wisdom  of  God  was  destined  to  be  most  glo¬ 
riously  shown.  It  was  not  at  once  apparent  in  its  fulness,  for 
only  events  yet  to  come  could  reveal  it;  but  the  very  “un¬ 
searchableness  of  his  judgments,”  or  mysteriousness  of  his 
work,  was  but  an  indication  of  “the  depth  of  the  riches  both 
of  the  wisdom  and  the  knowledge  of  God”  (Rom.  xi.  33), 
which  in  due  season  was  bound  to  be  manifested  in  the 
triumph  of  grace  over  sin.  In  his  own  time  God  would  vindi¬ 
cate  his  wisdom  in  human  affairs,  and  meanwhile  glimpses  of 
its  glory  were  the  joy  and  study  of  trustful  hearts. 


/ 


WISDOM  111 

The  Christian  doctrine  has  always  declared  God’s  wisdom 
to  be  perfect.  Between  omniscence  and  wisdom  the  distinc¬ 
tion  has  not  always  been  drawn  with  care,  but  the  differentia¬ 
tion  has  not  been  necessary  for  practical  purposes.  That 
God  knows  all  and  that  God  understands  all  are  so  nearly  the 
same  in  effect  that  the  need  of  sharp  distinction  is  not  urgent. 
The  Christian  belief  in  divine  wisdom  has  been  a  conviction 
that  God’s  understanding  of  all  things  is  to  be  trusted  as 
absolutely  sufficient  by  all  beings.  It  accepts  the  reality  of 
a  wisdom  that  includes  intellectual  understanding,  right 
moral  estimate,  sympathetic  comprehension  and  intelligence 
in  control. 

The  wisdom  that  is  attributed  to  God  must  needs  be  a 
creative  or  designing  and  productive  wisdom,  as  well  as  a 
wisdom  of  control  and  administration.  All  comes  from  God, 
and  in  him  is  all  the  wisdom  that  can  be  needed  for  making 
the  universe  to  be  what  it  is  and  ought  to  be.  Here  analogies 
from  human  knowing  fail  us  in  part,  though  in  part  they  help 
us.  We  are  familiar  with  a  theoretical  knowledge  that  is  not 
constructive,  an  understanding  of  something  once  built,  that 
could  never  have  built  the  thing.  Our  knowledge  of  nature 
is  necessarily  of  this  kind.  We  are  familiar  also  with  prac¬ 
tical  knowledge  of  situations  in  which  we  find  ourselves,  but 
which  we  did  not  originate,  knowledge  gained  from  experi¬ 
ence,  whereby  we  learn  to  adapt  ourselves  to  our  relations  and 
turn  them  to  use.  But  these  forms  of  knowledge  are  after¬ 
products  of  existence,  and  are  not  sufficient  for  illustration  of 
the  wisdom  of  God.  The  difference  is  that  from  him  all  has 
proceeded.  All  relations  in  which  he  stands  are  of  his  own 
ordering.  Not  only  is  he  wise  enough  to  employ  for  his  own 
purpose  the  relations  in  which  he  stands,  and  to  fulfil  them 
normally  when  once  they  are  established :  he  is  wise  enough  to 
have  established  them  at  first,  and  to  have  ordained  them  in 
accordance  with  his  own  worthy  nature.  He  has  brought  into 
existence  a  universe  in  which  he  could  express  himself,  both 
intellectually  and  morally.  He  has  created  relations  that  are 


112 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


worthy  of  him,  of  innumerable  kinds.  He  has  known  a 
universe  through  and  through.  He  has  unfolded  the  plan  of 
existence,  material  and  spiritual,  and  understood  the  vast 
system  of  being  that  he  created.  The  Christian  doctrine 
affirms  that  he  made  it  worthy  of  himself,  and  possessed  the 
wisdom  that  was  necessary  to  so  inconceivable  a  work.  And 
it  adds  that  in  the  development  and  administration  of  his 
universe,  with  all  the  works  and  destinies  that  it  includes,  he 
is  so  wise  that  his  children  may  safely  trust  him  in  all  respects 
and  through  all  duration. 

Such  a  conception  of  the  divine  wisdom  is  an  ever- 
expanding  conception,  growing  greater  in  proportion  as  our 
knowledge  of  its  field  of  operation  is  increased.  When  the 
Christian  doctrine  first  arose,  the  realm  of  known  existence 
was  comparatively  narrow.  It  seemed  great,  indeed,  to 
the  men  of  the  time,  but,  in  comparison  with  our  view  of 
the  universe,  it  was  so  small  that  we  often  fancy  ourselves 
at  liberty  to  smile  at  it.  The  earth  was  flat,  the  sun  existed 
to  give  it  light  and  seasons,  the  human  race  was  small  and 
just  created,  the  elements  of  human  nature  had  not  yet  been 
studied  out,  and  what  we  call  science  was  unknown.  It  is 
true  that  the  great  mysteries  were  the  same  as  now,  and  we 
must  not  be  high-minded,  as  if  life  had  glory  and  pathos  first 
in  our  time.  What  we  call  the  problems  of  existence  are 
present  in  every  personal  life,  in  any  age.  The  field  of  exist¬ 
ence  then  known  was  ^^all”  to  the  men  who  knew  it,  even  as 
the  field  of  existence  that  we  know  is  “all’’  to  us,  and  brought 
to  them  the  essential  problems  of  universality.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  both  true  and  important,  that  the  word  “all”  was  narrow 
then,  and  is  incomparably  broader  now;  and  that  with  it  has 
grown  the  conception  that  we  need  to  entertain  of  the  divine 
wisdom.  The  flat  earth  has  become  a  globe,  and  the  globe 
a  speck  in  a  universe  of  inconceivable  vastness.  The  human 
race  has  become  both  great  and  ancient,  its  varieties  perplex¬ 
ing,  its  life  complicated,  its  moral  problems  overwhelming, 
its  destinies  mysterious.  The  meaning  of  existence  is  a 
question  anxiously  discussed  not  only  by  philosophers  but 


WISDOM 


113 


by  the  people  everywhere.  To  say  that  all  is  under  the  order¬ 
ing  and  sway  of  divine  wisdom  is  to  affirm  far  more  than 
could  possibly  be  present  in  thought  to  any  writer  of  the 
Bible,  for  a  wisdom  adequate  to  the  world  that  is  known  to¬ 
day  must  be  far  broader  and  more  various  than  any  that  men 
of  the  first  century  could  imagine.  To  declare  that  this 
world  as  now  known  is  the  product  and  the  field  of  perfect 
wisdom  is  to  make  an  affirmation  that  could  never  have 
arisen  in  full  magnitude  in  any  mind  of  that  century;  and  to 
go  further  and  embrace  the  scope  of  the  universe  as  now 
conceived  under  the  thought  of  perfect  wisdom  is  to  do  what 
could  never  be  imagined  until  our  age  had  dawned. 

Nevertheless  the  Christian  doctrine  affirms  to-day  what  it 
affirmed  at  first.  In  the  larger  field  it  holds  what  it  held  in 
the  smaller.  It  is  still  a  doctrine  of  perfect  wisdom  in  God, 
all-inclusive,  adequate.  It  still  attributes  to  God  that 
comprehensive  knowledge  and  sympathetic  understanding  of 
all  existence  whereby  he  is  forever  worthy  of  the  confidence 
of  all  who  exist.  Neither  the  world,  nor  the  material  universe, 
nor  the  universe  of  spiritual  life  and  destiny,  it  declares,  is  too 
great  for  him.  He  understands  it  all  through  and  through, 
as  one  whole  and  in  its  infinity  of  detail,  so  perfectly  that  men 
may  trust  him  in  everything  without  a  fear.  He  is  so  wise 
that  he  has  a  right  to  have  a  universe  in  existence. 

It  is  evident  that  the  conception  of  an  adequate  wisdom 
enters  congenially  into  company  with  the  idea  of  orderly  and 
continuous  operation  on  the  part  of  God.  Probably  this  has 
never  been  denied  in  terms  among  Christians,  and  it  has  often 
been  affirmed;  but  the  doctrine  of  the  operation  of  divine 
wisdom  has  of  necessity  been  conditioned  by  the  conception 
of  the  world  that  was  abroad.  It  is  only  of  late,  comparatively, 
that  the  idea  of  genuine  unity  and  continuity  in  the  uni¬ 
verse  has  begun  to  do  its  work.  Before  it  became  influential, 
it  was  natural  to  think  of  God’s  wisdom  as  manifest  in  special 
operations,  in  overruling,  in  correcting,  in  controlling  alien 
affairs  and  irregular  movements.  In  a  fragmentary  world, 


114 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


God’s  interventions  and  occasional  touches  were  the  chief 
demonstrations  of  his  wisdom.  This  was  never  the  entire 
thought,  and  yet  this  view  of  the  matter  has  inevitably  been 
present  when  the  method  of  the  world  was  so  conceived  as  to 
suggest  it.  But  the  genuine  Christian  thought  welcomes  the 
idea  of  a  genuine  universe,  conducted  by  a  single  method  and 
expressive  of  one  continuous  purpose.  Hence  in  this  respect 
the  Christian  doctrine  is  conspicuously  at  home  with  the  mod¬ 
ern  view  of  the  universe.  In  the  modern  light,  God  in  his 
wisdom  appears  not  as  the  coordinator  of  fragments  or  the 
repairer  of  defects  in  operation :  he  is  the  originator  and  con¬ 
ductor  of  a  scheme  of  things  that  has  its  meaning  in  itself, 
and  proceeds  by  forces  that  he  has  placed  within  it.  Nothing 
but  a  genuine  universe,  indeed,  could  give  worthy  expression 
to  such  wisdom  as  the  Christian  doctrine  ascribes  to  God. 
If  at  the  present  stage  of  a  career  as  yet  unfinished,  meanings 
have  still  to  be  discovered  and  methods  to  be  justified  to 
human  thought,  that  is  nothing  strange,  and  casts  no  doubt 
upon  the  ruling  wisdom.  In  a  universe  so  vast,  it  will  be  no 
wonder  if  meanings  always  remain  in  part  for  faith  to  appre¬ 
hend.  But  the  Christian  heart  has  always  been  believing 
in  the  perfect  and  all-comprehensive  wisdom  of  God  who  is 
the  source  of  all,  and  now  it  is  permitted  to  welcome  a  view 
of  the  universe  that  corresponds  to  its  idea  of  wisdom.  The 
wisdom  that  the  universe  exhibits  is  single,  all-inclusive, 
constructive,  continuous,  coordinating,  adequate — just  as  the 
Christian  faith  declares  the  wisdom  of  God  to  be.  In  what 
manner  the  divine  mind  is  active  in  the  exercise  of  such 
wisdom,  we  may  never  know;  but  we  see  innumerable  rela¬ 
tions  established,  and  one  continuous  wisdom  working  in 
fulfilment  of  them;  and  Christianity  is  true  both  to  its  ancient 
doctrine  and  to  the  modern  light  when  in  the  presence  of 
every  intelligible  fact  it  answers,  “Lo,  God  is  here.” 

But  the  Christian  doctrine  is  doing  its  most  characteristic 
work  in  this  field  when  it  joyfully  sets  forth  the  wisdom  of  God 
as  his  adequacy  to  the  work  of  doing  justice  to  the  meaning  of 
his  holiness  and  love.  This  above  all  others  is  the  point  for 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


115 


Christian  emphasis.  He  knows  what  holiness  as  a  motive 
would  do,  and  what  love  as  a  motive  would  bring  forth,  and 
this  he  knows  with  perfect  understanding,  with  respect  to 
every  complication  and  contingency  that  can  arise  in  the 
affairs  of  his  universe.  To  do  all  that  holiness  and  love  re¬ 
quire  in  all  the  various  and  ever-changing  conditions  of 
existence,  meeting  all  occasions  as  they  rise,  sacrificing  neither 
love  nor  holiness,  neither  hasting  nor  resting  in  the  work, 
omitting  nothing  and  doing  nothing  amiss;  to  be  true  God 
to  all  existence  without  fault  or  failure — this  is  the  work  to 
which  the  wisdom  of  God  renders  him  forever  adequate. 
Not  only  is  he  the  eternal  holiness  and  love,  but  he  is  the  eternal 
holiness  loving  in  wisdom.  So  aflSrms  the  Christian  doctrine, 
and  so  rests  the  Christian  faith. 

7.  UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 

The  elements  of  character  that  have  now  been  attributed 
to  God  are  no  scattered  and  inharmonious  elements.  They 
constitute  a  real  unity  of  character,  so  clear  that  we  can  under¬ 
stand  it,  and  so  important  that  we  must  not  fail  to  attend  to 
it.  This  unity  constitutes  an  indispensable  element  in  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  God,  and  because  it  has  not  been  clearly 
discerned  the  doctrine  has  greatly  suffered,  and  religion  has 
suffered  with  it. 

It  is  easy  to  assert  a  perfect  unity  of  character  in  God,  but 
it  has  not  proved  so  easy  to  keep  a  well-defined  unity  steadily 
in  view.  The  trouble  is  in  us.  We  ascribe  to  God  certain 
qualities  of  character,  set  forth  in  familiar  terms,  but  when 
we  come  to  define  them  we  are  under  the  influence  of  our 
own  limitations,  and  however  large  and  worthy  the  terms 
that  we  use,  our  conceptions  are  sure  to  become  narrowed 
toward  the  dimensions  of  humanity.  Naturally,  if  not  inevit¬ 
ably,  we  bring  the  perfection  of  God  down  toward  our  own 
imperfectness;  and  one  result  is  that  the  qualities  that  we 
attribute  to  him  are  not  harmonious  among  themselves. 


116 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Virtuous  traits  as  they  exist  in  us  are  often  more  or  less  incon¬ 
sistent  with  one  another,  and  it  often  seems  to  us,  judging 
somewhat  from  ourselves,  that  they  must  be  so  in  God.  The 
God  of  the  Christian  faith  has  been  adored  and  loved,  but 
now  one  side  of  his  character  and  now  another  has  been  in 
sight,  different  aspects  of  his  being  have  seemed  inconsistent 
and  contradictory,  and  there  has  been  good  reason  why  the 
Christian  mind  should  be  perplexed.  There  is  trouble  when 
unity  and  consistency  cannot  be  discerned  in  the  character 
of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do. 

Holiness  and  love  are  the  great  outstanding  attributes,  and 
between  these  there  is  often  felt  to  be  a  genuine  contrast.  In 
theology  the  two  have  often  been  treated  as  profoundly  unlike 
each  other.  Doctrine  has  proceeded  now  from  holiness  and 
now  from  love  as  starting-point,  and  now  toward  holiness  and 
now  toward  love  has  the  souks  attitude  in  adoration  been 
turned.  Now  from  one  and  now  from  the  other  Christians 
have  felt  that  they  must  take  the  key  of  their  faith  and  life. 

For  this  apparently  there  are  reasons.  Love  and  holiness 
make  different  impressions  upon  us.  Love  is  winning,  we 
say,  and  holiness  is  awe-inspiring.  Love  gives,  and  holi¬ 
ness  demands.  Love  sets  a  major  key  for  life,  and  holiness 
a  minor.  A  sinner  feels  that  he  may  live  with  love,  but  must 
perish  in  the  presence  of  holiness.  Moreover,  love  is  a 
familiar  and  cherished  element  in  human  affairs,  while  holi¬ 
ness  is  regarded  as  something  that  comes  in  exactingly  from 
above:  love  in  fact  is  human,  but  holiness  is  divine.  It  is 
not  strange  that  the  two  have  been  suspected  of  being  irrec¬ 
oncilable  in  their  very  nature,  and  inharmonious  even  in 
God.  The  religious  experience  often  confirms  the  impres¬ 
sion,  for  the  condemnatory  voice  of  conscience  and  the  joyful 
song  of  salvation  are  so  unlike  as  to  suggest  that  the  contrast 
cannot  be  reconciled,  even  in  the  attributes  to  which  they  are 
deemed  to  be  responsive.  It  has  been  thought  that  law 
represented  God’s  holiness  and  gospel  his  love;  and  law  and 
gospel  have  been  set  in  such  contrast  that  law  must  be  satis¬ 
fied  before  gospel  could  exist.  So  it  has  been  common  to  hear 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


117 


of  conflicting  divine  attributes,  holiness  and  love  disagreeing 
in  their  demands,  and  of  plans  to  bring  them  into  harmony. 
We  hear  even  of  God  himself  as  planning  to  reconcile  them. 
But  though  the  belief  in  conflict  among  divine  attributes  may 
have  arisen  naturally,  still  it  has  made  great  trouble,  both  in 
theology  and  in  religion.  Nature  is  against  it.  The  con¬ 
viction  that  God  is  one  and  harmonious,  never  divided  against 
himself,  cannot  be  kept  down,  for  there  is  no  satisfactory 
theism  without  it.  Internal  conflict  in  the  perfect  Being  is 
incredible.  This  conviction  may  be  long  in  winning  its 
way,  but  no  scheme  of  doctrine  that  contradicts  it  has  sure 
lease  of  life,  and  as  long  as  internal  conflict  in  God  is  as¬ 
sumed,  there  is  perplexity  for  faith  and  weakness  for  theology. 
A  truly  religious  theology  will  posit  an  intelligible  unity  and 
consistency  in  the  character  of  God. 

One  cause  of  the  suspicion  of  internal  conflict  in  God  is 
that  Theology  has  been  too  much  in  bondage  to  its  doctrine  of 
Attributes.  The  qualities  of  character  and  modes  of  activity 
that  we  attribute  to  God  have  been  analyzed,  and  treated 
almost  like  separate  entities.  God  has  often  been  spoken  of 
almost  as  if  he  were  composed  of  attributes,  each  of  which 
had  its  special  dictation  to  offer  him.  Often  indeed  his 
character  and  works  have  been  set  forth  in  terms  of  what  his 
attributes  would  demand  and  do.  When  the  sense  of  his 
unity  is  lost,  it  is  the  attributes  that  are  thought  to  be  in 
conflict;  and  this  is  not  surprising,  when  attributes  are  set 
apart  from  the  Being  who  possesses  them,  and  almost  per¬ 
sonified  in  themselves. 

The  method  of  representing  God  in  terms  of  attributes  cor¬ 
responded  to  some  stages  in  the  understanding  of  psychology; 
but  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  has  done  more  good  or  harm, 
and  certainly  it  is  not  adapted  to  the  present  condition  of 
knowledge.  It  is  a  formal,  scholastic  and  unfruitful  method. 
We  do  not  study  any  other  character  by  such  means.  If  we 
were  invited  to  form  a  judgment  of  some  great  man  by  analyz¬ 
ing  his  character  into  separate  attributes  and  accounting  for 
his  actions  by  them,  we  should  promptly  decline,  distrusting 


118 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  method,  which  is  not  the  method  of  life.  It  is  God  that 
we  wish  to  know,  not  his  attributes.  The  practice  of  col¬ 
lecting  and  classifying  his  qualities  under  this  special  name 
has  not  been  favourable  to  that  impression  of  glorious  reality 
which  the  living  God  would  desire  to  make  upon  us.  We 
discern  qualities  of  character  in  him,  of  course,  and  give  them 
the  names  that  belong  to  them.  But  we  must  not  be  bound 
by  an  artificial  method  to  analyze  him  into  these  qualities 
and  then  discuss  what  each  of  them  will  lead  him  to  do. 
There  is  a  better  way  than  this.  The  Christian  view  shows 
us  God  himself,  standing  in  certain  relations  to  men,  and 
acting  on  certain  principles,  or  under  certain  impulses.  The 
impulses  and  principles  spring  from  within  himself,  and  are 
expressive  of  what  he  is.  We  give  names  to  them,  and  to  the 
traits  of  character  which  they  represent  and  verify  to  us. 
But  our  best  way  to  know  him  better  is  not  to  search  out  what 
his  separate  attributes  must  do,  but  to  learn  what  he  himself 
is  doing.  We  should  learn  the  attributes  from  God,  not  God 
from  the  attributes.  If  we  can  see  God  himself  in  the  unity  of 
his  spiritual  work,  we  shall  discern  the  unity  of  his  character. 

If  we  bring  together  what  the  Christian  doctrine  contains, 
this  unity  will  be  before  us. 

In  God  we  behold  a  Being  whom  we  call  good;  and  by 
this  we  mean,  as  we  have  defined  goodness,  that  he  is  One 
who,  standing  in  relations  with  other  beings,  fulfils  those 
relations  in  accordance  with  their  nature.  He  is  all  that  he 
ought  to  be  toward  other  beings — all  that  they  could  ask  or 
wish,  even  if  they  knew  all  that  could  be  known — and  hence 
it  is  certain  that  he  is  all  that  he  ought  to  be  in  himself. 
He  is  good,  in  perfection.  Now,  having  such  a  Being  as 
this  within  our  spiritual  ken,  we  look  with  eagerness  to  see 
what  this  perfection  means,  and  to  understand,  if  we  may, 
what  character  it  is  that  he  expresses  by  this  perfect  fulfilling 
of  all  relations. 

First  of  all  we  come  upon  the  great  revealing  fact  that  God 
loves  all  beings.  We  find  him  so  related  to  them  that  he 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


119 


desires  to  do  them  good.  To  him  they  are  precious.  Toward 
them  he  is  not  selfish  or  self-centred,  a  God  distant  and  re¬ 
served,  but  One  who  longs  to  impart  to  them  himself  and  his 
own  fellowship,  and  to  have  them  for  his  own  as  children  of 
his  heart.  He  is  a  self-outpouring  friend,  ready  to  do  good 
by  all  means  at  his  disposal.  The  great  vision  of  God  that 
the  Christian  light  reveals  to  us  is,  that  God  is  love  toward 
all  existence,  and  the  most  significant  fact  concerning  all 
existence  is,  that  it  is  loved  by  God.  We  behold  him  in  his 
attitude  toward  all  that  is  not  himself,  and  it  is  an  attitude  of 
outgoing  affection  that  seeks  the  good  of  all.  Since  he  is  the 
First  and  the  Last,  his  attitude  is  taken  by  himself:  it  is  not 
forced  upon  him  by  any  external  facts,  but  is  the  true  repre¬ 
sentation  of  what  he  is,  essentially  and  forever.  It  is  his 
nature  to  be  the  outreaching  friend  of  all  existence. 

We  now  look  further,  to  see  in  what  manner  God  acts  for 
the  accomplishment  of  this  desire  of  love  to  do  good  to  all. 
We  do  not  see  him  in  all  the  relations  that  he  sustains,  for 
many  of  them  lie  beyond  our  sight,  and  some  perhaps  lie 
essentially  beyond  the  range  of  our  experience.  But  we  see 
him  in  one  relation  that  has  true  revealing  power.  We  see 
him  in  his  relation  to  ourselves  and  our  fellow-men;  and  we 
are  moral  beings,  in  dealing  with  whom  he  is  manifested  as 
he  is.  We  are  sure  that  what  the  great  Lover  of  other  beings 
is  toward  our  group,  he  is  toward  all,  and  is  by  virtue  of  what 
is  essential  in  himself.  When  we  ask,  then,  in  what  kind  of 
action  he  expresses  his  love  toward  men,  we  find  that  he  acts 
out  his  love  by  insisting  always  upon  the  higher,  worthier, 
more  spiritual  aspect  of  their  life.  He  has  so  made  them  and 
the  world  in  which  they  live  that  nothing  but  goodness  can 
bring  them  a  prosperous  existence.  He  has  so  formed  their 
life  that  experience  produces  in  them  moral  judgment  and 
gives  them  moral  ideals,  and  then  he  insists  that  to  their 
moral  ideals  they  shall  be  faithful.  He  is  against  all  that  is 
abnormal  to  the  rising  life  of  the  spirit  in  them,  and  is  on  the 
side  of  all  that  is  pure  and  holy  and  uplifting.  Whenever 
life  develops  any  new  possibility  of  virtue,  he  is  on  the  side 


120 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


of  that  possibility.  His  call  for  loyal  response  to  his  own 
goodness  is  unvarying  and  inexorable,  and  his  interest  in  the 
moral  welfare  of  other  beings  never  dies.  The  best  is  what 
he  forever  insists  upon  and  promotes.  This  high  moral 
emphasis  is  characteristic  of  God  and  representative  of  his 
real  self.  In  God  resides  the  perfect  goodness,  shining  forth 
for  the*  guidance  of  finite  beings,  claiming  their  loyalty,  de¬ 
feating  their  sin,  crowning  their  response  to  its  own  demand. 
God,  we  say,  is  holy. 

We  look  once  more,  for  we  have  beheld  a  situation  that  still 
has  its  question  for  us.  The  First  of  spiritual  beings  stands 
so  related  to  other  beings  that  he  is  to  do  toward  them  all 
that  his  own  perfect  holiness  and  love  suggest.  He  is  to  ad¬ 
minister  their  life,  and  all  existence,  under  these  companion- 
impulses,  or  on  these  companion-principles.  The  under¬ 
taking  is  immeasurably  too  great  for  us  to  comprehend:  it 
is  so  far  beyond  us,  indeed,  that  we  have  to  acknowledge  that 
we  should  not  even  be  able  to  judge  whether  or  not  it  was 
worthily  performed.  But  as  for  God  himself,  we  learn  that 
he  is  wise.  He  is  as  wise  as  he  is  holy  or  gracious.  He 
knows  all  things,  but  he  is  more  than  omniscient,  which 
would  not  be  enough :  he  has  that  penetrating  and  sympathetic 
understanding  by  which  he  sees  as  simple  all  that  we  call 
complex,  and  is  able  to  guide  his  action  in  righteousness  and 
grace.  He  understands  his  work,  and  all  the  beings  upon 
whom  it  is  performed.  His  wisdom  is  an  ethical  wisdom,  not 
a  mere  knowledge,  and  forms  an  element  in  his  character. 
He  would  have  no  right  to  undertake  what  he  did  not  know 
how  to  perform,  but  this  he  has  not  done.  His  wisdom 
stands  as  basis  for  universal  and  everlasting  confidence  in 
him. 

Now  of  the  character  that  is  thus  portrayed  there  is  this  to 
be  said:  It  is  an  intelligent  and  straightforward  character, 
in  which  contradictions  do  not  appear,  either  as  present 
facts  or  as  possibilities.  Its  line  of  moral  movement  is  direct. 
T’he  eternal  and  essential  love  that  ever  reigns  in  God  is  an 
infinite  desire  for  universal  welfare,  and  for  satisfaction  for 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


121 


his  heart  in  such  welfare.  What  shall  love  do?  By  what 
kind  of  action  shall  that  desire  be  wrought  out  and  carried 
toward  effect?  Surely  by  action  of  that  which  we  call  holi¬ 
ness.  Through  expression  of  the  perfect  moral  excellence  of 
God  the  perfect  love  of  God  is  to  work  out  its  own  satisfac¬ 
tion.  There  is  no  other  way.  If  love  desires  the  welfare 
of  beings  who  are  intelligent  and  moral,  that  simply  means 
that  love  desires  them  to  become  like  the  good  God  and 
receive  the  blessing  of  his  fellowship.  Love  is  the  great  de¬ 
sire  that  other  beings  may  be  holy,  and  so  the  demands  of 
holiness  upon  them  are  agencies  with  which  love  can  by  no 
means  dispense  in  seeking  what  it  longs  for.  There  is  no 
way  to  do  the  perfect  good,  except  by  promoting  likeness  to 
the  perfect  character.  There  is  no  final  object  for  love  to 
seek  but  this,  and  there  is  no  way  for  love  to  obtain  its  object, 
except  by  holding  forth  the  claim  and  the  privilege  of  holiness. 
Hence  that  insistence  upon  the  good,  that  strictness  and 
sternness  by  which  God  opposes  evil,  that  terribleness  against 
wrong,  that  vision  of  infinite  purity  which  he  unveils  for  men 
to  see  afar,  all  these  are  most  congenial  agencies  for  love  to 
use  in  the  fulfilling  of  its  desire  to  bless.  And  if  love  and  holi¬ 
ness  thus  combine  in  forming  the  perfect  character  in  God, 
it  is  completed  by  addition  of  the  wisdom  that  understands 
what  is  to  be  done,  and  cannot  be  thwarted  by  the  com¬ 
plexities  of  the  undertaking. 

We  have  reached  this  account  of  the  unity  by  way  of  the 
relations  in  which  God  is  known  to  us.  This  is  the  only  way 
of  approach  that  we  possess,  and  we  need  not  doubt  that  it 
leads  us  legitimately.  But  it  brings  us  to  the  point  of  the 
ancient  controversy  to  which  we  have  already  alluded. 
Coming  to  God  through  the  relations  in  which  we  know  him, 
we  first  meet  the  fact  that  he  cares  for  us,  and  for  all;  and 
thus  the  first  truth  that  we  encounter  is  that  God  is  love. 
But  no  sooner  have  we  discovered  this  than  we  also  discover 
that  his  attitude  toward  us  is  taken  and  held  in  holiness,  and 
that  he  himself  is  holy.  With  two  such  qualities  recognized 


122 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  adored,  the  question  may  arise,  upon  which  of  them  we 
ought  to  place  the  stronger  emphasis.  The  question  has  long 
been  discussed,  and  schools  of  theology  have  been  formed 
and  types  of  religion  constituted  by  judgment  between  the 
primacy  of  holiness  and  the  primacy  of  love;  and  by  the 
discussion  the  conception  of  God  has  been  deprived  of 
much  of  the  clearness  and  simplicity  to  which  it  is  entitled. 
It  has  also  been  deprived  of  much  of  its  power.  But  the 
discussion  as  to  the  relative  rank  of  love  and  holiness  need 
not  be  continued,  because  such  contrasting  of  the  two  is 
not  in  keeping  with  their  character  or  helpful  to  a  true 
doctrine  of  God,  and  because  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  makes 
very  little  difference  which  side  of  the  question  we  take. 
Holiness  and  love  are  different  aspects  of  the  divine  char¬ 
acter,  but  really  they  are  so  nearly  alike  that  our  God  will  be 
essentially  the  same,  whichever  we  may  put  first  in  thought — 
provided  only  that  we  are  seeking  to  know  him  in  spiritual 
reality,  and  not  in  dialectical  acuteness.  Holiness  and  love 
do  not  need  to  be  brought  together  and  reconciled  before  they 
can  kiss  each  other.  They  are  of  one  spiritual  Idndred,  and 
by  their  very  nature  unite  to  form  one  perfect  and  harmonious 
character.  How  naturally  the  two  combine  a  comparison  of 
their  characteristic  works  will  show. 

Holiness  has  always  contributed  the  element  of  solemnity 
to  the  thought  of  God.  It  is  associated  with  greatness, 
majesty,  power:  in  his  holiness  God  is  magnificent,  impres¬ 
sive,  overwhelming,  while  along  with  the  supremacy  and 
splendour  appears  the  perfect  worthiness,  the  adorable 
purity,  the  dominant  excellence.  In  perfect  righteousness 
holiness  shines  forth.  Let  one  who  has  been  reared  under 
thoughtful  Christian  influence  try  to  gather  into  one  the 
impressions  that  are  made  by  the  mention  of  God  as  holy. 
The  word  stirs  sensations  that  have  no  parallel.  Splendour 
and  solemnity  are  blended,  but  most  of  all  holiness  means 
purity,  cleanness,  the  opposite  of  sin,  a  realm  where  evil  is 
not.  It  implies  insistence,  strictness,  justice,  everlasting 
remembrance  of  man’s  responsibility.  It  sets  forward  the 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


123 


exacting  aspects  of  moral  existence.  It  recalls  man  to 
conscience,  and  places  him  in  an  atmosphere  too  pure  for  him 
to  bear.  It  suggests  law  and  righteousness  on  God’s  part,  and 
transgression  and  guilt  on  the  side  of  man.  It  makes  God 
seem  unapproachable,  while  yet  it  shows  that  to  approach 
him  is  the  one  thing  needful.  Thus  holiness  humbles  man, 
and  fills  his  life  with  seriousness.  It  sets  a  ban  upon  sin,  and 
makes  forgiveness  look  precious,  though  it  may  seem  to  put 
forgiveness  beyond  reach.  Holiness  long  ago  suggested  that 
God  be  called  a  jealous  God  (Josh.  xxiv.  19).  In  some  senses 
the  word  is  utterly  false,  for  the  jealousy  that  implies  mean¬ 
ness  can  have  no  place  in  him;  yet  jealous  he  must  be  in  his 
holiness,  in  the  sense  that  he  brooks  no  rival  in  the  life  of 
moral  beings,  since  any  rival  must  be  infinitely  less  worthy  of 
their  affection  and  loyalty  than  himself.  Of  the  evil  that 
wins  his  creatures  away  from  him  to  their  ruin,  it  is  en¬ 
tirely  right  to  think  of  him  as  jealous.  In  the  universe  of 
a  holy  God  there  is  no  safe  place  for  sin. 

Somewhat  like  this  is  the  effect  of  the  divine  holiness  upon 
one  who  thinks  of  it  sincerely,  and  we  are  sure  that  this  effect 
is  right.  Even  if  awe  before  a  holy  God  should  sometimes 
grow  to  an  excess,  being  alone,  still  it  is  an  excess  upon  a 
wholesome  side,  which  one  would  not  wish  to  cure  except  by 
the  worthiest  means. 

Love  contributes  the  tender  and  winning  element  to  our 
thought  of  God.  It  is  a  harder  thing  to  believe  in  than  holi¬ 
ness,  in  a  world  misled  by  moral  evil.  Conscience,  condemn¬ 
ing,  makes  it  easier  to  recognize  a  holiness  that  condemns 
than  a  love  that  comes  to  help;  moreover,  the  heart  that  loves 
little  has  but  dim  vision  for  perceiving  love.  But  when  love 
is  once  clearly  discerned  and  believed  in,  all  things  are  new. 
Trust  takes  the  place  of  dread.  “Perfect  love  casteth  out 
fear”  (1  Jn.  iv.  18),  and  even  imperfect  love  makes  filial 
response  to  God.  It  beholds  a  God  from  whom  all  good 
is  to  be  expected,  who  can  be  trusted  for  all  patience,  for¬ 
bearance  and  help  that  his  child  may  need,  and  who  will 
never  fail  the  soul  that  trusG  him,  But  back  of  all  such 


124 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


personal  views  of  his  fatherly  care,  the  vision  of  love  is  the 
vision  of  a  God  who  is  Saviour  to  his  creatures  involved  in 
sin.  When  we  have  heard  of  divine  salvation,  it  has  been 
proclaimed  as  the  supreme  work  of  love.  It  is  because  God 
is  love  that  we  think  of  him  as  Saviour,  and  we  call  his  love 
the  sole  reliance  of  men  who  need  deliverance  from  evil. 
Love,  we  say,  is  self-sacrifice  for  the  other’s  good,  it  delights 
to  give,  it  is  forgiving  and  forbearing,  it  waits  for  nothing  but 
the  need,  and  so  the  God  of  love,  and  he  alone,  will  be  the 
divine  Saviour.  This  vision  is  indeed  the  spiritual  dawn, 
the  dawn  of  a  day  that  knows  no  night,  since  God  is  eternal. 
All  existence  is  now  transformed,  to  the  soul  that  has  the 
vision,  for  love  is  not  exclusive  but  goes  out  to  all.  All  is  new 
when  one  perceives  that  the  God  of  love  is  the  only  God  that 
lives,  on  whose  bosom  the  universe  is  borne. 

Somewhat  like  this  is  the  impression  of  love.  If  holiness 
humbles  man,  love  humbles  him  also,  by  the  outpouring  of 
good  that  he  does  not  deserve  and  the  opening  of  opportunity 
beyond  his  highest  thoughts.  If  the  sense  of  love  should  grow 
to  an  excess,  that  could  only  mean  that  our  conception  of  it 
was  partial,  and  love  was  not  sufficiently  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  other  truth. 

Holiness  and  love  are  practically  in  contrast  for  us  to  this 
extent,  that  each  has  its  atmosphere,  unlike  that  of  the 
other.  But  in  God  they  are  not  in  contrast,  though  they  are 
not  identical.  God  is  not  two,  now  holy  and  now  love:  he 
is  not  holiness  here  and  love  there.  He  does  not  need  to 
alternate  or  divide  between  these  two  principles.  God  is  one. 
He  is  holy,  and  he  is  love,  always  one  God.  The  harmony 
of  holiness  and  love  is  the  great  fact  that  gives  unity  and 
power  to  the  Christian  conception  of  God.  The  Christian 
doctrine  is  not  that  God  has  succeeded  in  harmonizing  them, 
but  that  in  him  they  are  in  harmony.  It  is  impossible  to 
frame  any  acceptable  definition  of  holiness  and  love  that  will 
represent  either  as  capable  of  acting  without  the  other,  or  as 
existing  without  perfect  fellowship  of  the  other  in  the  being 
of  God. 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


125 


Look  first  at  holiness.  If  holiness  in  God  is  the  fulness  of 
his  moral  excellence,  love  is  included  within  it.  Perfect 
moral  excellence  without  perfect  love  is  inconceivable.  If 
God  is  perfect  holiness,  it  is  necessarily  implied  that  he  is 
perfect  love.  Upon  this  we  need  not  dwell.  If  again  we 
think  of  holiness  as  that  sum  of  qualities  by  virtue  of  which 
God  rightly  fulfils  all  relations  in  which  he  stands,  the  case 
will  be  equally  clear.  The  right  and  normal  fulfilling  of  any 
personal  relation  is  impossible  without  love,  as  human  experi¬ 
ence  demonstrates;  and  as  to  the  supremely  important  rela¬ 
tions  that  God  sustains  to  other  moral  beings,  nothing  less 
than  perfect  love  can  possibly  satisfy  their  demand.  So 
we  are  not  justified  in  setting  love  apart  as  something  separate 
from  that  goodness  of  which  holiness  is  the  sum.  In  doing 
so  we  should  deny  the  goodness  of  God,  and  become  unable 
to  conceive  of  him  as  God  to  all  with  whom  he  has  to  do. 
Love  is  included  in  holiness. 

As  regards  love,  it  cannot  be  defined  without  including 
the  quality  of  holiness.  Even  imperfect  love,  such  as  we 
know  among  ourselves,  implies  at  least  some  genuine  virtue 
and  devotion  to  the  higher  ends  in  life.  Perfect  love  implies 
complete  purity  and  full  devotion  to  those  worthiest  ends. 
We  say  that  love  is  God’s  desire  to  impart  himself  to  other 
beings,  with  all  that  the  gift  will  convey.  But  that  desire 
is  perfect  only  as  the  gift  is  perfect.  Since  the  impartation 
of  himself  is  the  gift  of  the  perfect  good,  the  love  that  would 
give  it  is  the  perfect  love,  and  none  other  is  perfect.  We  say 
again  that  love  is  God’s  desire  to  possess  other  beings  in 
spiritual  fellowship;  but  here  again  we  must  say  that  the 
perfectness  of  the  love  is  measured  by  the  quality  of  the  fel¬ 
lowship  that  it  offers.  It  is  the  holiness  of  the  fellowship  that 
makes  it  so  infinitely  worth  giving  and  receiving.  If  the 
gift  were  less  holy,  the  love  would  be  less  perfect.  Holiness 
is  included  in  love. 

If  each  includes  the  other,  and  in  its  action  implies  the 
action  of  the  other;  if  we  cannot  adequately  define  either  of 
the  two  without  using  something  of  the  other  as  an  element 


126 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


in  our  definition;  then  surely  we  have  no  reason  to  think 
of  holiness  and  love  as  contradictory  in  principle  or  incom¬ 
patible  in  practice. 

The  harmony  may  be  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  another 
inquiry  which  is  indispensable  to  the  forming  of  a  true  doctrine 
of  God.  Whether  holiness  and  love  are  harmonious  or  not 
may  fairly  be  tested  by  inquiring  how  they  will  lead  God 
to  act  toward  the  human  race.  Two  facts  meet  us:  one  that 
the  human  race  is  imperfect,  developed  only  in  part,  still 
on  its  way  from  its  beginning  to  its  end;  the  other  that  it 
is  also  sinful,  having  consented  to  the  worse  instead  of  the 
better,  and  fallen  into  sin  for  which  it  is  blameworthy.  We 
may  suspect  that  concerning  the  manner  in  which  holiness 
and  love  would  act  toward  such  a  race  we  can  only  conjecture, 
and  our  guesses  will  be  of  little  worth.  Yet  there  may  be 
moral  certainties  that  will  guide  us  to  conclusions  of  which 
we  may  be  reasonably  sure. 

Holiness  in  God  is  the  administrator  of  an  inexorable  de¬ 
mand.  Humanity  is  a  race  whose  normal  advance  is  from 
the  beastlike  to  the  godlike:  its  norm  is  the  spirit,  and  the 
spirit  can  prosper  only  in  goodness.  Holiness  in  God,  there¬ 
fore,  holds  men  to  that  goodness  which  is  their  higher  life 
and  their  only  successful  life.  At  least  it  is  to  holiness  that 
we  naturally  attribute  this  strictness  and  insistence  of  God. 
It  has  so  made  the  world  that  clinging  to  that  lower  life  which 
ought  to  be  abandoned  is  ruin.  Through  conscience,  experi¬ 
ence  and  revelation  it  testifies  that  there  is  but  one  right  life. 
Mankind,  weak  and  undeveloped,  has  sinfully  yielded  to  the 
abnormal,  and  is  involved  in  moral  evil,  which  in  its  nature 
is  a  hopeless  thing;  and  holiness  in  God,  fulfilling  his  relation 
to  men,  stands  against  this  evil,  and  works  against  it.  It 
makes  the  sinner  suffer,  for  it  has  wrought  punishment  into 
the  very  structure  of  existence,  so  making  the  world  that  a 
man  reaps  as  he  has  sown.  In  this  relation  holiness  is  the 
emphasis  of  God  upon  the  difference  between  good  and  evil. 
It  holds  forth  the  good,  in  the  form  of  divine  authority,  re- 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


127 


quiring  that  there  be  a  genuine  moral  order  in  which  men  shall 
live,  and  a  firm  hand  administering  their  destiny.  It  upholds 
that  constitution  of  the  world  which  stands  as  a  true  expres¬ 
sion  of  God  against  sin,  making  no  compromise  with  evil, 
and  dealing  with  men  always  in  view  of  the  unchangeable 
moral  element. 

To  all  this,  what  has  love  to  say  ?  In  this  severer  view  of 
the  divine  relation  love  joins  without  objection.  Nay,  it 
would  propose  the  same.  Love  is  God^s  desire  to  impart  all 
good  to  men :  but  it  is  good  for  men  to  live  under  a  holy  and 
righteous  order,  accountable  to  God.  This  therefore  love 
desires.  Moreover,  to  men  as  they  are  there  is  no  imparting 
all  good  without  enforcing  the  contrast  between  good  and 
evil,  and  setting  them  against  all  evil,  even  though  it  be  part 
of  their  very  selves.  All  revelation  and  enforcement  of  that 
eternal  contrast  which  it  is  ruin  for  men  to  forget  is  agreeable 
to  love,  for  the  good  that  love  desires  to  impart  includes  the 
full  establishment  of  the  universal  righteous  order,  grounded 
in  the  holiness  of  God.  Love  delights  in  the  righteous  order 
as  profoundly  as  holiness.  It  wishes  men  to  know  their 
danger  from  sin,  and  to  feel  the  pressure  of  all  warning,  re¬ 
proof  and  pain  by  which  they  may  be  won  away  from  it. 
Love,  seeking  the  best  for  its  objects,  is  content  with  all  that 
holiness  requires,  or  rather  it  requires  the  same. 

To  the  divine  love  we  attribute  God’s  desire  to  save  men 
from  sin.  Salvation  is  the  fruit  of  love:  so  it  appears  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  so  the  Christian  faith  delights  to  testify. 
Love  and  salvation  correspond  to  each  other.  Given  weak¬ 
ness,  and  love  will  desire  to  help;  danger,  and  it  will  come  to 
the  rescue;  sin,  and  it  will  seek  to  save.  It  is  love  that  makes 
God  the  helper  of  his  creatures  against  the  moral  evil  that 
holds  them  in  its  grasp.  Love  is  the  deliverer. 

What  has  holiness  to  say  to  the  saving  of  men  from  sin? 
Holiness  is  on  the  side  of  such  work,  just  as  truly  as  love. 
Here  it  has  been  sadly  misunderstood.  Holiness  dealing 
with  sin  in  men  has  been  interpreted  as  almost  equivalent 
to  punitive  justice  and  nothing  more.  It  has  actually  been 


128 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


thought  that  holiness  would  be  content  to  rest  in  the  con¬ 
demnation  of  the  sinful,  and  have  no  inward  difficulty  in 
leaving  them  condemned — a  dreadful  conception  of  holiness, 
and  of  God.  But  we  mistake  if  we  think  the  proposal  for 
salvation  could  come  only  from  love.  It  is  an  incalculable 
misfortune  that  such  an  idea  has  ever  been  abroad,  for  thereby 
injustice  has  been  done  to  God,  the  conception  of  salvation 
has  been  narrowed  and  weakened,  and  one  of  the  worthiest 
ethical  appeals  has  been  robbed  of  its  power.  Salvation 
springs  from  God’s  holiness,  just  as  truly  as  from  his  love. 

The  fact  that  suggests  salvation  is  the  presence  of  sin, 
which  is  opposite  to  holiness.  Holiness,  of  course,  includes 
a  sincere  and  profound  opposition  to  sin.  But  a  sincere  and 
profound  opposition  cannot  be  content  without  something 
done.  Our  partial  and  half-hearted  hatred  of  sin  is  often 
satisfied  with  an  inward  condemnation  that  merely  condemns, 
and  sometimes  thinks  itself  satisfied  when  a  sinner  suffers 
punishment;  but  perfect  holiness  will  not  be  content  with 
such  hatred.  When  God  in  his  holiness  finds  in  existence  the 
sin  that  he  hates,  he  desires  to  abolish  it.  In  God,  hatred  of 
sin  and  desire  to  put  it  away  from  men  must  be  equal;  and 
the  hatred  of  sin  is  no  more  an  expression  of  his  holiness  than 
the  desire  to  put  it  away.  Perfect  holiness  must  go  forth  as 
an  impulse  for  promotion  of  its  own  quality  in  other  beings; 
and  in  a  sinful  world  that  is  salvation.  It  is  impossible  to 
think  of  holiness  as  content  to  let  sin  go  on  without  endeavour 
to  save  men  from  it.  It  is  equally  impossible  to  think  of 
holiness  as  satisfied  with  inflicting  punishment  upon  sinners. 
A  God  whose  holiness  was  as  well  satisfied  with  punishing 
sinners  as  with  saving  them  would  not  be  a  holy  God  at  all, 
for  his  so-called  holiness  could  be  satisfied  without  insisting 
upon  the  highest  good. 

We  may  learn  also  from  our  other  definition  of  holiness. 
We  have  said  that  holiness  is  the  character  by  virtue  of  which 
God  fulfils  his  relations  with  other  beings.  From  the  per¬ 
fectly  holy  One  there  goes  forth  such  action  as  worthily 
belongs  to  the  position  in  which  he  stands  toward  others  of 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


129 


every  kind.  First  among  the  relations  that  God  sustains  to 
men  is  that  of  creator,  or  source  and  cause  of  their  existence. 
If  he  did  not  exist  they  would  not,  and  if  he  had  not  willed 
it  they  would  never  have  lived.  Next  among  his  relations 
come  such  as  that  of  the  great  to  the  small,  the  strong  to  the 
weak,  the  perfect  to  the  undeveloped,  the  pure  to  the  impure, 
the  holy  to  the  sinful.  These  relations  are  necessarily  in¬ 
volved  in  the  very  existence  of  God  and  men,  and  neither 
God  nor  men  can  escape  from  them  while  the  existence  of 
both  continues.  It  is  the  impulse  and  nature  of  holiness  to 
do  all  that  these  relations  normally  suggest.  But  in  them  all 
the  normal  work  for  God  is  helpfulness.  It  is  normal — that 
is  to  say,  it  is  right — for  the  great  to  be  at  the  service  of  the 
small,  the  strong  to  help  the  weak,  the  perfect  to  discipline 
the  undeveloped,  the  pure  to  cleanse  the  impure,  the  holy  to 
save  the  sinful  from  their  sin.  We  know  that  this  is  the  way 
among  men,  and  all  the  more  must  this  be  the  way  with  God. 
The  good  God  is  so  related  to  weak  and  sinful  men  as  that  the 
relation  itself  suggests  help  from  him,  to  deliver  them  from 
their  evil.  If  he  left  the  human  race  unhelped,  he  would  not 
be  acting  normally,  or  worthily  of  himself,  as  the  great,  the 
strong,  the  perfect,  the  pure,  the  holy.  Back  of  all  relations 
that  can  be  expressed  in  terms  of  character  or  power  lies  the 
absolutely  fundamental  relation  of  Creator  and  creature.  In 
every  grade  of  rational  life,  one  being  owes  something  to 
another  whom  he  has  caused  to  exist.  A  God  who  did  , 
nothing  to  save  a  sinful  race  of  which  he  was  the  Creator  we 
could  not  revere  as  holy.  He  would  be  ignoring  a  relation  in 
which  he  had  placed  himself,  and  that  would  be  as  impos¬ 
sible  to  holiness  as  to  love. 

If  we  take  any  other  admissible  definition  of  holiness,  the 
result  will  be  the  same.  We  may  accept  the  definition  that 
holiness  is  purity  asserting  itself.  Then  perfect  holiness  will 
assert  itself  against  all  moral  evil,  by  all  means  that  are  in 
keeping  with  its  nature.  It  will  condemn  all  evil,  and  souls 
that  have  cast  in  their  lot  with  evil  will  be  condemned  with 
the  evil  that  they  have  made  their  own.  The  condemnation 


130 


THE  CHKISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


that  proceeds  from  holiness  does  not  cause  the  deprivation 
and  suffering  that  sin  must  bring,  but  it  does  correspond  to  it 
and  confirm  it,  and  it  lasts  as  long  as  the  choice  of  evil  con¬ 
tinues,  whether  for  an  hour  or  forever.  But  purity  cannot 
be  sufficiently  asserted  in  condemnation,  or  in  punishment. 
No  governmental  insistence  or  severity  can  do  it  justice.  If 
the  perfect  purity  asserts  itself  in  a  world  of  moral  beings, 
it  will  offer  itself  to  them,  and  urge  itself  upon  them.  Any 
assertion  of  purity  that  does  not  include  the  eager  offering  of 
purity  to  those  who  need  it  is  only  a  technical  and  outside 
assertion,  never  to  be  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  holi¬ 
ness  of  God.  If  purity  asserts  itself  worthily  of  God,  it 
offers  itself  to  spiritual  beings  as  the  only  good,  and  comes 
winningly  to  them  with  its  appeal  for  their  allegiance.  Only 
in  proportion  as  purity  has  asserted  itself  invitingly  to  men  is 
it  justified  in  asserting  itself  condemningly  upon  them. 
Purity  that  asserts  itself  imparts  itself.  And  so  the  self- 
asserting  purity  is  one  in  message  with  the  self-asserting  love. 
Holiness  desires  to  save  from  evil. 

Sometimes  we  are  led  to  look  upon  men  less  in  their  guilti¬ 
ness  than  in  their  imperfectness.  We  blame  our  race,  but 
in  some  lights  we  pity  it  even  more,  and  we  feel  that  the 
pity  is  right.  Sin  came  into  the  race  in  its  infancy,  before 
it  knew  the  full  significance  of  what  it  did.  Man  at  the  best 
is  but  a  little  one,  with  the  powers  of  a  universe  playing  upon 
him.  He  is  undeveloped  even  yet,  and  no  high  approach  to 
perfection  can  be  expected  of  him.  Present  sin  has  been  as 
much  inherited  as  committed.  So  man  seems  to  us  unfortu¬ 
nate,  quite  as  much  as  blameworthy,  and  we  think  it  is  pity 
that  he  needs,  mercy  and  not  judgment,  so  that  only  love  can 
do  him  good.  This  tenderer  judgment  is  coming  in  in  our 
own  time,  partly  from  better  knowledge  of  humanity,  and 
partly  by  way  of  reaction  from  a  judgment  that  was  too  one¬ 
sided  to  be  just.  But  the  case  is  still  the  same.  The  love 
of  God  would  go  out  to  such  a  race  as  this  bearing 
help,  but  his  holiness  would  go  at  his  side.  Divine  good¬ 
ness  fulfilling  its  relations  will  be  faithful  to  such  a  race 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


131 


as  this,  just  as  truly  as  love  that  has  compassion  on  the 
needy. 

Thus  holiness  and  love  come  into  no  conflict  in  dealing 
with  an  imperfect  world,  or  with  a  sinful  world.  If  holiness 
claims  that  the  soul  is  supreme,  and  calls  attention  to  the 
highest  element  in  life,  love  knows  that  the  soul  is  supreme, 
appeals  to  its  highest  life,  and  waits  for  its  response  to  its  own 
advances.  If  holiness  insists  upon  conformity  to  the  highest 
moral  standard,  love  knows  that  nothing  else  is  to  be  desired. 
If  holiness  declares  that  what  stands  against  its  claim  must 
suffer,  love  knows  that  this  is  true  and  has  no  word  to  say 
against  it,  but  seizes  upon  suffering  as  a  means  to  win  the 
soul.  And  if  love  desires  the  welfare  of  men,  their  welfare 
stands  in  holiness,  and  holiness  is  sharer  in  the  desire.  If  love 
seeks  to  save  from  sin,  so  does  holiness,  with  an  impulse  no 
less  eager.  If  love  rejoices  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth, 
holiness  rejoices  too.  If  love  would  administer  human  exist¬ 
ence  for  a  good  end,  holiness  could  administer  it  for  no  other. 
If  holiness  is  strict,  so  is  love;  if  love  is  generous,  so  is  holiness. 
But  it  is  better  to  be  done  with  the  personifications,  and  say 
that  God  himself  is  strict  and  generous  at  once,  and  acts 
equally  in  holiness  and  love  in  both.  God  is  one.  God  is 
eternal  goodness,  loving  in  wisdom. 

If  it  is  true  that  holiness  and  love  are  not  inharmonious  in 
their  nature,  this  truth  must  be  allowed  its  due  influence, 
which  will  prove  most  beneficent.  Evidently  there  is  hence¬ 
forth  no  need  of  discussing  any  views  or  theories  in  theology 
that  rest  upon  the  assumption  that  love  and  holiness  need  to 
be  reconciled.  As  soon  as  the  Christian  conception  of  God 
is  held  up  for  illumination,  all  such  theories  retire  from  our 
field.  If  the  qualities  themselves  are  of  one  heart  and  mind, 
so  must  be  their  claims,  and  there  can  be  no  need  of  bringing 
them  into  harmony.  If  we  cannot  entirely  work  out  for  our¬ 
selves  the  method  of  their  operation,  we  may  remember  that 
we  have  no  need  to  do  so,  but  may  trust  all  to  that  perfect 
wisdom  in  which  the  eternal  love  is  working  for  the  ends  of 


132 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


holiness.  The  eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom  may 
command  our  perfect  confidence. 

It  is  beyond  our  power  to  picture  to  ourselves  all  that  is 
meant  by  the  one  harmonious  character  of  God  now  indi¬ 
cated.  It  means  too  much.  Yet  the  conception  is  not  un¬ 
clear,  and  before  advancing  to  other  aspects  of  our  doctrine 
it  will  be  well,  even  at  the  cost  of  repetition,  to  gather  it  up 
as  far  as  possible  into  a  single  statement. 

Behold  a  Being  in  whom  every  excellence  that  befits  a 
spirit  exists  in  perfect  degree  and  without  contradiction.  He 
is  source  and  sovereign  of  all  other  existence,  and  by  virtue 
of  his  perfect  character  is  worthily  fulfilling  all  relations  that 
he  sustains.  He  is  absolutely  devoted  to  those  ends  of  exist¬ 
ence  which  are  worthy  of  the  spirit,  namely,  to  character, 
purity,  truth,  righteousness,  grace,  love,  helpfulness.  These 
we  see  him  holding  as  the  motive  of  his  own  action,  and  hold¬ 
ing  forth  for  other  beings  to  act  upon.  We  see  him  exercising 
firm  authority  over  men,  insisting  that  they  live  the  life  of  the 
spirit  in  purity  and  high-mindedness,  and  administering  their 
life  in  such  insistence.  He  completes  the  claim  of  his  holiness 
by  the  endeavour  of  his  love.  Acting  toward  us  men  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  nature,  he  counts  us  his  own,  he  loves  us  and  longs 
to  impart  himself  to  us  in  holy  fellowship  and  possess  us  in 
the  same;  he  withholds  nothing  of  patience,  effort  and  self- 
sacrifice  to  satisfy  his  love  and  holiness  through  moral  union 
of  men  with  himself.  Thus  he  acts,  and  thus  exists.  The 
impression  that  we  receive  of  him  is  solemn,  searching,  awe¬ 
inspiring;  we  are  not  worthy  to  stand  before  him:  yet  it 
is  also  winning,  cheering,  uplifting;  he  wishes  us  to  stand 
before  him.  He  embraces  us  in  holy  love,  and  cleanses  us  by 
gracious  holiness.  In  goodness  he  is  all  that  we  can  desire 
or  think,  and  more.  He  is  the  same  to  all,  and  the 
same  forever.  He  is  worthy  of  the  perfect  and  everlasting 
love  of  all  beings;  worthy  to  be  trusted,  to  be  held  in  loy¬ 
alty,  to  be  obeyed  in  the  doing  of  his  will  and  the  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  his  purpose.  It  is  the  thing  most  of  all  to  be 
desired  that  all  intelligent  beings  may  take  their  place  in 


UNITY  IN  CHARACTER 


133 


fellowship  with  him,  conforming  to  his  holiness  and  satisfying 
his  love. 

Such  a  God  is  beyond  the  reach  of  human  comprehension, 
but  not  of  such  acquaintance  as  the  Christian  method  contem¬ 
plates.  The  Christian  knowledge  of  God  is  not  a  complete 
understanding,  it  is  a  practical  and  religious  acquaintance; 
and  to  this  the  character  of  God  yields  itself  perfectly.  Jesus 
is  our  example  here.  We  can  know  God  as  Jesus  knew  him 
in  personal  life.  We  know  him  in  his  holiness,  and  in  his 
love.  We  know  him  but  slightly  and  afar,  and  can  never 
know  him  altogether,  but  we  are  assured  that  as  we  go  on  to 
know  him  better  we  shall  simply  be  gazing  deeper  into  spirit¬ 
ual  perfection.  That  he  seems  ever  greater  to  us  as  we  go  on 
is  no  barrier  to  acquaintance  with  him  in  the  fellowship  of 
a  worthy  life.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  God  and  the 
Christian  method  of  knowing  God  go  perfectly  together. 

There  is  no  need  to  show  that  the  existence  of  such  a  God 
is  the  most  glorious  and  beneficent  fact  that  could  be  pro¬ 
claimed.  The  meaning  of  it  is,  that  goodness  lies  back  of 
all  existence.  Eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom  is  the 
source  and  fount  of  all.  This  is  the  Christian  doctrine,  always 
held.  As  to  what  the  doctrine  may  imply,  and  how  it  should 
be  unfolded,  Christians  have  differed  widely,  but  from  the 
beginning  till  now  all  have  held  that  God  is  the  source  of  all, 
and  that  he  is  the  perfect  goodness,  love  and  wisdom.  This 
all  creeds  proclaim,  and  all  Christian  preaching  daily  reiter¬ 
ates.  Doubtless  there  must  remain  much  to  be  brought 
forth  from  the  abundance  of  a  truth  so  great,  and  if  Christian 
faith  proceeds  to  bring  forth  that  which  still  remains  unde¬ 
veloped,  it  will  be  acting  upon  its  own  traditions;  for  it  has 
always  been  held  that  all  purifying  and  exalting  of  the 
Christian  ideal  of  God  is  simply  approximation  to  the  truth 
concerning  the  God  who  lives. 

To  affirm  this  doctrine  is  not  to  prove  it,  and  it  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  all  men  will  receive  it  because  it  has  been  uttered 
even  by  so  revealing  a  messenger  as  Jesus  Christ.  Real 
belief  of  such  a  doctrine  is  a  great  and  diflScult  thing.  It  is 


134 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


difficult  because  the  belief  is  so  exacting:  it  is  difficult  also 
because  in  the  world  that  we  observe  there  are  so  many  facts 
that  are  hard  to  reconcile  with  it.  There  are  many  who 
are  sure  that  we  can  never  establish  the  claim  that  God  is 
perfect  goodness  loving  in  wisdom,  and  that  this  is  his  world. 
Christianity,  however,  does  not  begin  with  attempt  at  demon¬ 
stration.  Its  convictions  are  experimental  and  spiritual,  and 
it  has  the  courage  of  its  convictions.  It  affirms  its  doctrine, 
on  the  ground  of  its  confidence  in  divine  self-revealing  and 
trustworthy  human  experience.  But  it  is  well  understood 
that  the  doctrine  must  be  compared  with  other  truth,  and 
Christian  faith  freely  offers  it  for  such  comparison.  If  it  is 
not  true,  let  facts  reveal  its  weakness.  But  the  Christian 
faith  offers  its  doctrine  of  eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom, 
as  the  truest  and  best  interpretation  of  existence:  not  as  an 
academic  thesis,  but  as  a  reasonable  view  of  existing  things, 
to  be  tested  by  mind  and  heart,  by  thought  and  life,  and  by 
comparison  with  truth  in  every  quarter.  It  does  not  ask  for 
such  judgment  as  can  be  passed  in  an  hour,  but  it  is  confident 
that  the  long  process  of  experience  and  comparison  will  con¬ 
firm  its  confidence  in  the  perfect  God. 


II.  GOD  AND  MEN 


1.  CREATOR 

The  Christian  method  must  be  followed  in  the  unfolding 
of  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  according  to  that  method  the 
doctrine  of  God  is  religious  before  it  is  philosophical.  Philos¬ 
ophy  may  look  first  at  universal  being,  and  search  for  signs 
of  God  in  pervading  methods  and  principles,  but  Christianity 
looks  first  at  humanity  and  experience,  and  seeks  God  in  life 
and  personal  relations.  In  the  study  of  Theism  we  might 
inquire  in  what  sense  it  is  possible  to  believe  in  God,  and  wait 
for  the  conclusion  before  beginning  to  believe;  but  Christian 
study  discovers  God  in  human  faith  and  life,  and  begins  there 
the  construction  of  its  doctrine.  It  is  thus  that  Jesus  the 
Master  has  led  his  disciples.  If  we  employ  his  method  we 
shall  know  our  God  in  life,  with  a  knowledge  that  consists 
in  acquaintance,  and  then  explore  the  wider  fields  in  which 
he  is  to  be  found. 

Under  this  influence  from  Jesus  Christ  as  teacher  and 
revealer,  the  doctrine  concerning  God  and  Men  is  here  made 
to  precede  the  doctrine  concerning  God  and  the  Universe. 
We  undertake  to  utilize  the  Christian  light  and  follow  the 
Christian  order.  We  have  already  found  that  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  God  is  at  heart  a  doctrine  of  character :  we  do  not 
wonder,  therefore,  that  the  Christian  influence  leads  us  to 
consider  him  first  in  those  relations  in  which  character  is  the 
controlling  fact.  Only  in  his  dealings  with  intelligent  and 
moral  beings  can  the  God  of  character  reveal  himself  at  the 
highest.  There  is  higher  revelation  in  his  dwelling  with  the 
humble  than  in  his  filling  space.  If  we  are  to  know  God  as 
he  appears  in  Christ,  we  must  attend  first  to  the  relations  with 
moral  beings  in  which  he  is  most  adequately  expressed.  We 

135 


136 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


need  in  due  time  to  form  as  clear  notions  as  we  may  of  God 
in  the  universe,  but  we  shall  learn  most  about  him  nearer 
home,  in  his  relations  with  ourselves.  In  fact  it  is  only  in 
the  field  of  spiritual  relations  and  works,  which  is  the  human 
field,  that  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God,  strictly  so-called,  is 
to  be  found :  here  is  the  Christian  centre  and  specialty,  where 
God  manifests  himself  to  men.  At  every  stage  of  its  life 
Christian  thought  has  passed  beyond  this  original  simplicity 
to  consider  the  larger  problems  of  existence,  and  so  it  must 
always  do.  Nevertheless,  it  is  our  privilege  to  know  God 
first  at  home,  and  to  carry  out  to  wider  fields  a  conception  of 
him  that  has  been  formed  in  the  experiences  of  spiritual  life. 

Therefore  next,  after  studying  the  character  of  God,  we 
proceed  to  consider  God  in  relations  with  men.  With  what 
shall  we  begin  ?  Several  such  relations  are  to  be  considered, 
but  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  which  of  them  should  be  consid¬ 
ered  first.  We  must  begin  with  the  one  that  is  most  funda¬ 
mental  and  comprehensive;  and  the  first  fact  concerning 
God  and  men  together  is,  that  the  existence  of  men  is  due  to 
God.  He  is  the  original,  and  they  are  products  of  his  will 
and  work.  The  primary  relation  is  the  one  that  holds  be¬ 
tween  Creator  and  creatures.  There  is  no  other  that  lies 
back  of  this,  except  in  the  thought  and  purpose  of  God,  and 
within  this  all  other  relations  are  embraced.  This  therefore 
is  first  to  be  considered. 

The  general  problem  of  the  nature  and  method  of  creation 
does  not  meet  us  here,  for  we  are  now  concerned  only  with 
the  relation  between  God  and  men.  Elsewhere,  but  not  here, 
the  larger  question  must  be  considered.  The  fact  affirmed 
in  any  doctrine  of  creatorship  is  that  God  is  the  source  of 
other  existence;  and  the  fact  now  before  us  is  that  God  is  the 
source  or  origin  or  cause  of  the  existence  of  mankind.  It  is 
because  of  the  will  and  action  of  the  self-conscious  and  self- 
determining  God  that  the  human  race  exists.  Other  in¬ 
quiries  concerning  creation  may  wait,  for  this  is  all  that  we 
need  at  present. 


CREATOR 


137 


The  Christian  doctrine  has  always  held  that  man  is  the 
creature  of  God.  All  Theism  of  high  grade  holds  the  same, 
and  so  do  the  religions  generally.  There  are  many  ways  of 
conceiving  the  manner  of  creation,  some  of  them  low  and 
fanciful  and  some  high  and  spiritual,  but  the  origin  of  man¬ 
kind  in  the  divine  will  and  act  is  common  property  in  the 
thought  of  the  race.  In  all  pictorial  representations  of  the 
human  beginning,  however  crude  they  may  be,  this  first  belief 
finds  expression;  for  it  is  a  universal  conviction  that  humanity 
is  not  independent  in  its  existence,  but  owes  its  origin  to  a 
higher  power.  The  crudeness  of  the  picturing  of  this  power 
and  its  working  may  be  disregarded,  for  it  detracts  nothing 
from  the  strength  of  the  belief.  Far  above  other  faiths  the 
Hebrew  and  Christian  faiths  ascend,  in  that  they  have  made 
prominent  the  infinite  intelligence  of  the  Creator,  and  the 
moral  element  in  the  creative  work.  They  affirm  that  a 
good  God  created  mankind,  for  a  good  end,  and  sustains 
toward  men  the  conscious  relation  of  a  good  Creator,  dealing 
with  that  to  which  he  has  given  existence.  The  element  of 
goodness  in  the  Creator  has  always  been  at  the  front  in  the 
Christian  doctrine,  which  ever  identifies  the  Creator  of  man¬ 
kind  with  that  good  God  and  Saviour  who  is  known  in  Christ. 
No  other  faith  compares  at  all  with  the  Christian  in  the 
clearness  and  force  with  which  the  connection  between 
the  origin  of  man  and  the  goodness  of  God  is  affirmed. 
Christianity  is  sure  that  the  race  owes  its  existence  to  a 
good  Being. 

Very  prominent  in  the  Christian  doctrine  is  the  statement 
that  God  created  man  in  his  own  likeness.  This  conception 
is  not  peculiar  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  for  in  any  case 
where  an  intelligent  creator  is  supposed  to  exist  it  is  neces¬ 
sarily  implied  that  man,  who  is  also  intelligent,  bears  resem¬ 
blance  to  him.  Even  the  myths  of  savages  affirm  this.  But 
in  Hebrew  and  Christian  faith  the  idea  has  meant  more  than 
elsewhere,  in  proportion  as  the  conception  of  the  Creator  was 
more  full  of  meaning.  In  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  (26-27) 


138 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  thought  of  the  writer  seems  to  be  that  God  created  man 
in  his  own  likeness  in  respect  of  capacity  for  dominion  over 
that  which  was  below  him  in  the  order  of  existence;  for  the 
likeness  of  man  to  God  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  the 
dominion  that  is  assigned  him  over  the  animal  world.  Domin¬ 
ion  over  lower  life  of  course  implies  that  man  is  above  it,  as 
God  is.  It  implies  intelligence  and  will,  making  authority 
and  efficiency  possible;  and  in  this  the  writer’s  idea  of  man’s 
likeness  to  God  seems  to  have  consisted.  Of  personality  this 
is  no  metaphysical  account,  but  it  is  a  very  true  practical 
representation.  With  his  range  of  thought,  the  writer  could 
scarcely  have  found  a  more  effective  way  to  represent  that 
intelligent,  self-centred  and  controlling  quality  in  which  man 
surpasses  all  other  living  beings  on  earth,  and  rises  into  the 
likeness  of  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  all.  The  likeness  of  God 
in  man  here  consists  in  that  to  which  we,  with  our  different 
vocabulary,  give  the  name  of  personality.  Resemblance  to 
God  as  holy  is  not  included  under  the  name.  There  is  no 
hint  in  the  Scriptures  that  the  likeness  of  God  was  under¬ 
stood  to  have  been  lost  through  sin.  In  the  Epistle  of  James 
(iii.  9)  it  is  mentioned  as  a  badge  of  human  dignity  and 
worth,  a  fact  in  human  nature  that  ought  to  protect  a  man 
from  contempt  and  cursing  on  the  part  of  his  fellows. 
The  point  is  simply  that  man  resembles  God  in  the  pos¬ 
session  of  the  powers  that  constitute  an  intelligent  and 
active  being. 

Mention  of  the  divine  likeness  in  man  is  not  frequent  in  the 
Bible,  but  the  idea  is  everywhere  present  as  the  formative 
idea  in  religion.  The  idea  is  present  in  all  religions,  ex¬ 
pressed  or  implied,  but  most  of  all  in  the  Christian  faith.  If 
there  were  no  spiritual  likeness  between  God  and  man,  there 
could  be  no  such  thing  in  religion  as  a  vitalizing  reality.  If 
the  likeness  were  not  believed  to  be  real,  the  very  idea  of 
religion  could  not  exist;  and  if  the  belief  were  only  an  illusion, 
religion  would  be  an  illusion  also.  But  since  he  bears  the 
likeness  of  God  in  personal  quality,  man  stands  as  one  who 
may  commune  with  God  if  God  is  willing,  and  rise  to  life 


CREATOR 


139 


in  spiritual  fellowship  with  him.  Likeness  to  God  is  seen  to 
constitute  man^s  greatness  if  we  look  downward  for  compari¬ 
son  with  what  is  below  him,  and  no  less  if  we  look  upward  to 
the  One  who  alone  is  above  him. 

Mankind  was  created  as  a  race.  Whatever  may  be  its 
duration  and  extent,  the  racial  existence  of  humanity  is  due 
to  God.  He  meant  it  to  be  a  race,  self-propagating  and  con¬ 
tinuous.  The  manner  of  its  origin,  whatever  it  may  have 
been,  makes  no  difference  here.  As  to  the  manner,  the  word 
creation  is  sometimes  objected  to  when  God’s  relation  to  the 
beginning  is  in  view,  because  it  has  long  been  associated  with 
a  single  method  of  production,  which  in  many  minds  is  con¬ 
ceived  as  mechanical.  But  there  is  no  proper  objection  to  the 
word,  for  it  implies  nothing  mechanical  in  the  method,  and 
in  fact  tells  nothing  as  to  the  mode  of  operation.  It  declares 
only  that  God  by  his  own  will  and  action  gave  existence  to  the 
human  race.  If  we  are  ever  to  know  in  what  manner  this 
was  done,  we  must  learn  it  from  such  facts  as  may  lie  within 
our  reach.  It  has  long  been  believed  that  God  created  a 
single  pair,  unconnected  with  other  living  creatures,  to  be 
parents  of  the  coming  race.  But  it  is  now  to  be  accepted  on 
sufficient  evidence  that  he  brought  mankind  into  existence 
by  long  and  gradual  process,  so  ordering  his  world  that 
animal  life  and  experience  should  develop  those  powers  of 
intelligence  and  will  by  possession  of  which  man  came  at 
length  to  bear  God’s  likeness.  Like  every  other  great  thing 
in  the  world,  humanity  is  the  outcome  of  a  growth.  Once 
the  powers  of  a  spirit  existed  in  their  typical  perfection  in  God, 
but  elsewhere  only  in  promise  and  prospect,  beginning  to  be 
developed  through  life,  but  not  yet  human;  later  there  was 
incipient  man,  barely  human,  becoming  gradually  more 
human  as  experience  gave  him  higher  training;  to-day  man 
exists  in  various  degrees  of  likeness  to  him  who  is  above  him, 
and  is  truly  a  spirit,  still  advancing  in  the  development  of 
those  powers  of  personality  which  he  possesses  in  common 
with  God.  This  long  course  has  gone  on  according  to  the 
will  and  wisdom  of  him  who  is  wonderful  in  counsel  and 


140 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


excellent  in  working,  and  is  a  far  more  wonderful  creative 
work  than  an  instantaneous  act  would  be.  By  this  process 
God  has  created  the  human  race. 

We  can  say  in  these  few  words  that  God  created  mankind, 
and  we  may  well  be  thrilled  with  wonder  and  bow  in  adora¬ 
tion  when  we  think  of  what  it  means.  But  the  mere  state¬ 
ment  by  no  means  shows  the  place  of  creation  in  the  doctrine 
of  God.  The  relation  between  Creator  and  creature  has  pro¬ 
found  meanings,  and  meanings  which  it  is  necessary  that 
the  creature  should  grasp,  if  he  is  to  have  true  knowledge  of 
his  Creator.  The  statement,  God  created  man,’’  is  not 
understood  until  into  it  is  read  all  the  meaning  that  the 
separate  words  should  bear.  It  must  mean  all  that  God 
means,  and  all  that  man  signifies,  and  all  that  is  implied  in 
creation. 

When  we  speak  of  God  as  Creator,  we  speak  of  that  Being 
of  perfect  love,  holiness  and  wisdom,  whose  character  has 
already  been  set  forth.  God  is  perfect  character,  acting. 
He  is  the  eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom,  worthy  of  the 
perfect  confidence  of  all  beings  that  exist  or  can  exist.  When 
we  speak  of  man,  we  speak  of  the  intelligent  and  moral  being 
who  bears  the  likeness  of  God.  He  came  up  from  stock  that 
did  not  bear  the  divine  likeness,  but  he  bears  it  now,  and  is 
therefore  capable  of  life  in  fellowship  with  God;  capable 
also  of  life  out  of  that  fellowship,  in  sin  against  his  own 
endowments  and  destinies  and  against  his  God.  His  racial 
career,  measured  by  generations,  has  already  been  long  and 
still  stretches  on  into  the  future.  The  moral  element  never 
departs  from  his  life,  and  the  weight  of  responsibility  and 
destiny  is  upon  him.  When  we  speak  of  the  creation  of  man, 
we  mean  that  this  God,  with  this  character,  has  brought  into 
existence  this  race,  with  these  qualities,  experiences  and 
possibilities.  To  a  race  brought  forth  from  below,  he  has 
gradually  imparted  his  own  qualities  of  personal  and  responsi¬ 
ble  being.  The  existence  of  this  race  is  due  solely  to  the  will 
and  working  of  the  God  whom  in  Jesus  Christ  we  have. 


CREATOR 


141 


begun  to  know.  This  we  mean  when  we  say  that  God 
created  man. 

When  we  inquire  concerning  the  relation  between  Creator 
and  creature,  w^e  are  asking  how  this  character  in  God  leads 
him  to  feel  and  act  toward  this  race  with  its  qualities  and  con¬ 
ditions  of  existence,  and,  accordingly,  how  man  should  feel 
and  act  toward  this  God  to  whom  he  owes  his  being.  Of 
course  the  former  point  is  decisive  of  the  latter,  for  God  is 
first.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  God  that  we  are  seeking  to  unfold. 
So  our  question  means.  What,  to  such  a  God,  is  involved  in  a 
creative  relation  to  such  a  race?  and  how  does  the  eternal 
goodness  fulfil  this  relation  ? 

The  range  and  extent  of  the  question  deserve  a  word  of 
further  exposition.  The  question  contemplates  the  race  in 
all  its  variety  and  through  its  entire  duration.  We  are  not 
asking  how  God  is  related  to  men  after  they  have  fallen  into 
sin,  or  how  he  is  related  to  some  single  part  of  humanity: 
not  how  he  is  related  to  Jews  or  Gentiles,  Christians,  Turks 
or  infidels,  the  privileged  or  the  unprivileged.  Our  question 
is,  how  is  the  divine  Being  related  to  anything  and  everything 
that  is  human,  when  the  human  has  been  created  by  the 
divine?  how,  from  the  time  when  first  there  was  a  human 
being,  on  to  the  time  when  all  destinies  of  the  human  shall 
have  been  wrought  out  ?  This  is  the  field  of  our  questioning. 
We  might  limit  it  to  some  fragment  of  this  field  of  life,  but  the 
limitation  would  defeat  the  inquiry.  We  can  answer  any 
such  subordinate  question  only  in  the  light  of  the  compre¬ 
hensive  one. 

It  is  often  felt  that  this  inquiry  is  beyond  our  rights,  God 
being  so  far  above  us  that  we  are  not  entitled  to  discuss  his 
ways.  But  the  objection  does  not  hold.  Our  judgment  as 
to  the  meaning  and  outlook  of  our  own  life  depends  upon  the 
significance  that  we  attach  to  this  creative  relation.  We 
cannot  be  forbidden  to  inquire  concerning  a  significance  so 
important  to  ourselves.  It  has  also  been  said  that  this  inquiry 
is  beyond  our  power;  for  what  can  we  know  of  what  creator- 
ship  means  to  God  ?  But  neither  does  this  objection  hold. 


142 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Ethical  relations  are  intelligible  to  ethical  beings,  and  such 
are  we.  Our  understanding  may  be  imperfect,  but  we  are 
not  without  power  to  discern  the  moral  significance  of  a 
creative  relation.  To  deny  our  ability  to  do  this  is  to  distrust 
our  moral  nature  in  all  its  work. 

It  has  often  been  felt  that  reverence  for  God  as  independent 
and  supreme  requires  us  to  deny  that  he  can  owe  any  attention 
or  care  to  any  race,  even  though  he  has  brought  it  into  existence. 
That  he  owes  nothing  to  any  one  whatever,  but  is  absolutely 
independent  in  determining  what  his  relations  shall  mean  to 
him,  has  been  held  to  be  a  first  postulate  concerning  God. 
According  to  this  view  his  own  will,  not  responding  to  any¬ 
thing  inherent  in  the  nature  of  our  relation  to  him,  has  been 
regarded  as  solely  decisive  of  his  action  toward  us  men. 
But  this  we  cannot  hold.  Not  thus  does  morality  work — 
and  to  God  we  ascribe  perfection  in  morality.  All  that  we 
know  of  mutual  relations,  and  of  goodness,  teaches  us  that 
the  giving  of  life  carries  obligations  with  it.  Parents  are 
creators,  in  a  limited  and  mediate  fashion,  and  all  experience 
bears  witness  that  the  giving  of  life  binds  the  giver  to  do  good 
to  the  recipient  of  the  gift.  To  produce  life  and  acknowledge 
no  obligation  to  it  is  to  fall  below  the  average  of  human  virtue. 
Shall  we  say  that  what  is  thus  plainly  true  of  men  as  moral 
beings  is  true  of  God  also?  Why  not?  We  may  hesitate, 
because  we  should  thus  deny  the  absolute  independence  of 
God.  But  the  reason  is  not  good.  If  God  by  his  independent 
will  has  placed  himself  within  certain  relations,  the  neces¬ 
sary  effect  of  those  relations  is  not  to  be  judged  inconsistent 
with  his  independence.  We  may  hesitate  also  because  it  may 
seem  incredible  that  God  should  be  under  obligations,  and 
especially  to  beings  far  below  him.  But  this  is  part  of  a 
mistaken  idea  of  sovereignty,  which  a  worthier  conception  of 
God  makes  us  outgrow.  After  all,  we  need  not  hesitate. 
It  is  a  simple  and  obvious  fact  in  morals  among  men  that  the 
giving  of  life  brings  responsibility,  and  we  cannot  make  God 
an  exception  to  so  obvious  a  principle.  It  is  no  part  of  due 
reverence  to  exempt  him  from  the  claims  of  high  morality. 


CREATOR 


143 


If  we  say  that  he  does  not  acknowledge  or  feel  those  claims, 
we  imply  that  he  does  not  possess  the  highest  morality. 
When  we  call  God  the  perfect  Being,  we  imply  that  moral 
obligations  belong  to  him,  and  will  by  him  be  worthily  ful¬ 
filled.  There  is  sufficient  reason  why  we  must  say  that  a 
Creator  ought  to  take  care  of  that  which  he  has  created,  and 
there  is  no  good  reason  against  it. 

Yet  it  is  not  necessary  to  lay  emphasis  on  the  idea  of 
obligation.  It  is  enough  to  ask  how  the  perfect  character 
will  lead  its  possessor  to  stand  toward  a  race  of  his  own 
creating.  This  question  we  can  answer,  and  we  must  not 
imagine  that  we  cannot.  The  eternal  goodness  loving  in 
wisdom  will  not  leave  such  a  race  alone.  He  cannot  possibly 
regard  it  as  anything  else  than  a  race  that  exists  because  of 
him,  for  that  is  what  it  is.  Toward  it  he  will  be  the  good  God. 
By  no  possibility  can  we  conceive  of  him  as  holding  an  attitude 
of  indifference  or  neglect  toward  a  race  that  he  has  brought 
into  being.  One  who  brought  forth  a  race  by  long  and  patient 
process,  only  to  forget  it,  or  leave  its  destiny  uninfluenced 
for  good,  would  be  justly  regarded  as  unworthy  to  be  a  cre¬ 
ator.  In  judging  thus  we  need  not  wait  until  we  know  exactly 
what  a  faithful  creator  ought  to  do  for  the  race  that  he  has 
created.  What  a  creator  ought  to  do  is  the  same  as  what  a 
good  creator  will  be  moved  to  do;  and  whether  we  know 
just  what  this  is  or  not,  we  must  ascribe  it  to  God,  since  we 
hold  that  he  is  perfect.  One  who  brings  intelligent  beings  into 
a  moral  and  responsible  existence  which  they  did  not  seek  may 
fairly  be  expected  to  act  toward  them  according  to  goodness, 
and  be  to  them  a  faithful  creator.  If  we  hold  the  Christian 
conception  of  God,  we  must  look  in  his  relation  to  men  as  men 
for  evidence  that  he  is  morally  faithful  to  his  creative  office. 

This  is  no  new  or  modern  statement.  The  Christian 
doctrine  has  always  affirmed  that  the  God  of  absolute  per¬ 
fection  is  Creator  of  the  human  race,  and  that  he  is  never 
unfaithful  to  himself.  The  idea  that  he  rightly  fulfils  all 
relations  in  which  he  stands  is  as  old  as  the  high  ethical  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Deity,  and  has  always  been  implied  in  the 


144 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Christian  proclamation.  How  much  it  means  has  not  been 
fully  seen;  but  the  doctrine  itself,  that  the  perfect  God,  al¬ 
ways  faithful  to  himself,  stands  in  the  relation  of  creatorship 
toward  humanity,  has  always  been  held,  not  only  in  thought 
but  also  in  faith.  Something  of  the  meaning  still  remains  to  be 
developed,  but  not  as  a  new  element  in  Christian  doctrine. 
This  is  one  of  the  points  at  which  the  historical  development 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  has  still  to  be  carried  on. 

The  meaning  of  the  creative  relation  has  to  be  considered 
in  view  of  the  extent,  variety  and  duration  of  the  race.  When 
we  speak  of  God  as  Creator  to  mankind,  of  course  we  mean 
the  whole  of  mankind.  Only  just  now  are  we  beginning  to 
see,  and  not  even  yet  to  feel,  how  ancient  humanity  is,  and  by 
what  course  it  has  come  up  to  its  present  state.  We  now 
think  of  the  race  as  coming  up  through  unmeasured  ages  of 
lower  life,  and  slowly  becoming  human;  as  human  at  length 
in  all  its  parts,  but  human  in  all  degrees  of  advancement; 
as  living  to-day  in  all  grades  of  humanness.  To  be  fully 
and  perfectly  human  is  to  be  developed  in  soul  and  living  in 
fellowship  with  God;  and  we  know  mankind  as  loyal  in  some 
degree  to  the  life  that  leads  to  this  human  destiny,  but  far 
more  as  sinning  against  it,  against  itself  and  against  its  God. 
When  we  look  upon  the  human  race,  a  vast  mystery  of  glory 
and  horror  meets  our  gaze.  Then  whoever  gives  voice  to  the 
Christian  doctrine  proclaims  that  over  against  this  race  stands 
and  has  always  stood  the  eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom, 
doing  toward  it  the  work  of  a  faithful  Creator.  Our  fathers 
said  this,  and  so  must  their  children  say,  if  they  are  Chris¬ 
tians.  Our  fathers  said  it  in  view  of  the  humanity  that  they 
had  in  mind,  but  we  must  say  it  in  view  of  the  larger  humanity 
that  is  known  to  us.  The  idea  of  a  faithful  Creator  is  as 
much  a  part  of  the  Christian  doctrine  now  as  it  was  when 
the  readers  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  were  bidden  commit 
their  souls  in  well-doing  unto  a  faithful  Creator  (iv.  19). 

Not  only  the  doctrine  of  a  faithful  Creator,  but  the  practical 
effect  of  it,  has  been  truly  stated  by  Christians  from  of  old. 


CREATOR 


145 


It  has  been  said  for  ages  in  Christian  Apologetics  that  a  good 
God,  if  he  exists,  will  certainly  communicate  with  his  human 
creatures  in  the  realm  of  their  spiritual  life.  He  will  not  be 
a  God  apart,  he  will  reveal  himself.  So  he  will.  Nothing 
can  be  more  certain.  That  is  the  shortest  of  inferences  from 
his  goodness.  That  the  good  God  will  be  to  men  a  com¬ 
municating  God  is  as  surely  true  as  anything  that  we  can 
say  of  him. 

Our  assurance  of  this  is  enhanced  by  what  the  Christian 
doctrine  affirms  concerning  the  likeness  between  God  and 
men.  Man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God.  The  two  are 
not  aliens  to  each  other,  and  the  community  is  in  the  very 
nature.  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  so  is  man,  and  therefore 
“Spirit  with  spirit  can  meet.’^  Man  is  created  receptive  of 
God,  capable  of  communion  with  him,  and  of  entertaining 
him,  so  to  speak,  as  the  guest  of  the  soul.  Since  this  rests 
upon  a  fact  in  creation,  it  is  true  not  of  some  specially-trained 
parts  of  the  race  alone,  but  of  man  as  man,  and  in  his  measure 
of  every  man,  so  far  as  the  essentials  of  humanity  exist  in 
him.  Man  is  of  such  nature  that  the  spiritual  impression  of 
God  can  be  made  upon  him.  In  his  degree,  every  man  is 
capable  of  receiving  such  divine  impression;  and  human 
nature  is  such  that  at  its  highest  the  very  fulness  of  God 
can  be  expressed  in  it.  The  ancient  and  wide-spread  belief 
in  incarnation  is  genuine  testimony  to  the  human  sense  of 
kinship  to  God;  and  the  testimony  bears  witness  to  the  truth. 
Therefore  the  human  race  as  a  race  has  always  stood  ready 
by  its  constitution  to  receive  communication  from  God.  The 
confidence  that  he  will  be  a  communicating  God  which  is 
raised  by  his  own  nature  is  confirmed  by  the  nature  of  the 
race  that  he  has  formed  for  communication  with  himself. 

As  soon  as  we  have  taken  into  account  the  greatness  and 
antiquity  of  the  race,  and  the  manner  of  its  growth,  it  is  plain 
that  we  must  enlarge  the  familiar  estimate  of  the  amount  of 
communication  that  may  be  expected  from  the  good  God. 
The  Christian  argument  has  affirmed  that  from  such  a  God 
we  might  expect  the  revelation  that  is  recorded  in  the  Old 


146 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  New  Testaments  and  completed  in  Jesus  Christ.  This 
Christian  communication  from  God  has  been  regarded  as  a 
communication  to  all  mankind;  but  we  must  remember  that 
this  estimate  of  it  was  made  when  the  human  race  was  con¬ 
sidered  but  small  and  of  recent  origin.  It  is  the  fact  too  that 
in  Christian  thinking  about  human  relations  with  God  the  race 
has  generally  retained  pretty  nearly  the  dimensions  that  were 
in  mind  when  the  Bible  was  written.  Dealings  of  God  with 
Abraham  and  with  Israel  have  been  regarded  as  dealings 
with  mankind,  and  the  relation  of  primitive  Chinese  or 
African  humanity  to  God  has  scarcely  been  taken  into  mind 
at  all.  But  this  is  no  longer  tolerable.  When  we  speak  of 
manldnd  in  relation  to  God  we  must  mean  the  whole  of  it. 
We  cannot  affirm  that  the  revelation  from  God  that  the  Bible 
records  was  given  to  mankind.  Ages  of  human  existence 
passed  before  it  came  at  all,  and  thus  far  it  has  reached  only 
a  minor  portion  of  the  living  race.  This  rich  and  glorious 
revelation  was  indeed  to  be  expected  from  the  good  God,  but 
such  a  God  as  it  reveals  would  surely  begin  earlier  with  a 
created  race,  and  do  something  for  it  all.  The  self-communi- 
cation  of  a  faithful  Creator  who  is  the  eternal  goodness  loving 
in  wisdom  will  begin  farther  back  and  be  universal.  That 
which  he  has  done  in  Christ  can  be  nothing  else  than  the  cul¬ 
mination  of  a  work  of  God  as  God  upon  man  as  man.  God  has 
always  been  in  communication  with  all  spirits  of  the  human 
race.  So  the  Christian  doctrine  has  always  affirmed,  for  it 
has  always  borne  testimony  to  the  true  light  that  lighteth 
every  man  (Jn.  i.  9). 

The  doctrine  here  involved  is  not  strictly  that  of  the  divine 
Immanence,  which  must  be  considered  elsewhere.  It  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  will  of  God  in  the  structure  and  operation  of 
human  nature.  God  is  the  author  of  the  scheme  of  life. 
It  is  he  who  brought  it  to  pass  that  man  advances  from  the 
life  of  the  beast  to  the  life  of  the  spirit.  The  life  that  moves 
from  the  animal  to  the  spiritual  realm  is  of  his  giving  and  of 
his  designing.  The  soul  dawning  in  man  is  his  self-imparta- 
tion,  and  it  is  by  his  will  that  human  nature  has  its  proper 


CREATOR 


147 


destiny  in  godlikeness.  Now  the  very  fact  that  the  Creator 
has  made  man  thus  is  enough  to  hold  Creator  and  creature 
together  in  a  relation  deep  and  strong.  It  is  enough  to  ensure 
interest  of  Creator  in  creature,  and  to  establish  responsibility 
of  creature  to  Creator.  Not  by  chance  has  man  a  destiny 
and  life  a  meaning:  it  is  the  gift  of  God.  Man  is  normally 
the  upward-moving  creature,  who  owes  himself  to  God,  and 
can  prosper  only  by  rising  to  God :  to  God  therefore  must  his 
eyes  be  turned,  and  all  that  represents  God  to  him  must  have 
authority  for  his  soul. 

Not  only  thus  in  his  constitution,  but  in  the  structure  of 
his  life,  is  the  touch  of  God  laid  upon  man.  It  is  by  the 
friendly  wisdom  of  God  that  human  experience  is  framed  to 
teach  the  lessons  of  duty.  No  man  is  alone.  The  relations 
of  life  are  social,  and  therefore  necessarily  moral.  They 
imply  mutual  duties,  which  experience  gradually  brings  to 
light  and  makes  impressive.  In  them  it  is  always  possible  to 
do  right  and  wrong.  Out  of  the  fact  of  duty  grows  the  sense 
of  duty,  which  is  no  illusion  but  a  true  knowledge,  though 
needing  instruction  still.  The  fact  of  duty  is  God^s  appoint¬ 
ment,  and  the  sense  of  duty  is  God’s  gift.  God  is  the  source 
of  conscience.  All  moral  judgment  is  an  imperfect  repro¬ 
duction  of  his  perfect  judgment.  All  duty,  even  though  it 
seem  limited  to  narrow  circles  of  human  relation,  is  taught 
to  man  at  the  bidding  of  the  will  of  God;  and  in  being 
amenable  to  his  conscience,  whether  in  matters  great  or 
small,  man  is  amenable  to  God  who  gave  it.  He  cannot 
learn  all  duty  in  a  lifetime  or  in  a  lifetime  become  faithful 
to  all  that  he  has  learned;  but  duty  is  the  “daughter  of  the 
voice  of  God,”  and  in  the  life  that  he  has  created  ethical, 
God  is  holding  man  to  responsibility,  and  urging  upon  him 
the  claims  of  his  own  goodness.  And  the  claims  of  duty 
that  are  thus  pressed  home  are  claims  for  conformity  to 
God’s  character  of  love  and  holiness.  Life  is  a  school  for 
helpfulness,  unselfishness,  recognition  of  the  claim  of  the 
other.  Through  various  experiences  God  is  leading  on  step 
by  step  to  the  possibility  of  a  reign  of  love  over  life.  Both  the 


148 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


self-prizing  and  the  self-giving  impulses  are  trained  by  the 
common  experience.  Life,  rightly  followed  as  a  teacher, 
commends  and  commands  the  virtues  of  self-control,  enter¬ 
prise,  courage,  manliness,  affection,  unselfishness,  usefulness. 
Life  is  always  calling  attention  to  its  own  moral  aspects. 
Primary  lessons  are  first,  and  higher  lessons  quickly  follow, 
and  the  teaching  never  ceases.  The  real  teacher  is  always 
God,  whether  he  is  discerned  or  not.  All  the  way  upward 
from  the  lowest  human  stage  this  is  true,  that  God  is  gradually 
bearing  in  upon  the  growing  humanity  the  claims  of  the 
eternal  goodness.  At  any  moment  it  may  be  said  to  any 
human  being,  “The  best  in  you  is  God  in  you,”  for  by  the 
best  in  the  man  God  is  represented,  and  is  calling  him  on  to 
better.  This  is  the  manner  and  spirit  of  God’s  communica¬ 
tion  with  his  created  race,  and  in  such  work  we  may  truly  say 
that  he  is  the  eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom.  This  is 
work  worthy  of  a  faithful  Creator. 

It  is  plain  that  this  communicating  of  God  with  humanity 
begins  from  the  earliest  human  times.  It  ought,  for  if  God 
could  not  bring  up  little  children  he  would  have  no  right  to 
be  a  Father.  We  do  not  honour  him  when  we  doubt  whether 
he  can  thus  condescend  to  human  infancy  and  weakness.  It 
is  plain  also  that  this  communicating  is  as  wide  as  humanity. 
It  is  not  dependent  upon  time  or  place,  or  upon  religious  con¬ 
ditions.  The  relation  exists  in  Christian  and  pagan  realms 
alike.  God  as  God  is  always  in  contact  with  man  as  man,  and 
therefore  with  every  man,  and  is  represented  to  each  man  by 
that  man’s  best,  which  is  God’s  own  gift  and  comes  with  his 
authority.  And  the  relation  of  God  to  man  that  is  thus 
enacted  is  not  one  of  hard  severity  and  unloving  intention. 
Judgment  with  condemnation  is  not  its  end  in  view.  It  does 
not  contemplate  man  primarily  as  on  trial.  Instead,  it 
regards  him  as  a  growing  creature  who  is  to  be  trained  by 
life,  disciplined  and  developed  by  experience,  and  brought  up 
toward  that  for  which  he  was  created.  Perhaps  indeed  it 
might  even  more  truly  be  said  that  as  a  spiritual  being  man  is 
still  in  the  creative  hands  of  God,  and  God  is  still  making  him: 


CREATOR 


149 


the  creative  process,  which  is  an  unfolding  and  training  of  the 
spirit,  is  still  in  progress.  In  whichever  way  the  creative 
work  is  pictured,  the  Creator’s  intent  toward  man  is  kindly 
and  helpful,  and  severity  is  not  an  end  but  a  means,  a  help  to 
purposes  worthy  of  the  faithful  God. 

Evidence  of  such  a  relation  of  Creator  to  creature  may  be 
thought  to  be  wanting,  and  hesitation  about  believing  in  it 
should  not  surprise  us.  There  are  many  reasons  why  we  are 
slow  to  believe  in  it.  A  sinful  race,  whose  habits  of  thought 
we  all  inherit,  is  certain  to  misconceive  a  perfect  God,  and  to 
err  concerning  him  by  putting  him  too  far  away,  not  seeing 
how  near  it  is  his  holy  nature  to  come.  We  have  little 
experience  in  really  holding  the  idea  of  an  indwelling  God, 
whose  living  voice  is  heard  in  all  significant  expressions  of  the 
world.  We  have  long  conceived  of  him  more  or  less  as  tran¬ 
scendent  in  the  sense  of  distant,  or  at  least  as  so  superior  as 
to  be  practically  afar.  We  have  thought  of  him  as  speaking 
from  heaven,  and  as  communicating  through  messengers,  till 
we  can  scarcely  recognize  so  intimate  a  presence  as  this 
Christian  doctrine  implies.  We  are  influenced  too  by  long 
inheritance  of  the  idea  that  all  teaching  of  God  must  needs  be 
perfect  and  on  the  highest  plane — an  idea  suggested  by 
reverence,  but  by  a  reverence  that  misses  some  of  God’s  chief 
glories.  The  inherited  conception  of  human  depravity  shuts 
out  the  thought  that  God  can  have  been  always  in  communica¬ 
tion  with  the  human  spirit  in  all  stages  of  its  being.  Taking 
our  type  of  thought  from  the  Jewish  tabernacle,  not  from  the 
Word  that  tabernacled  among  us,  we  think  that  sin  must 
shut  God  away:  he  cannot  be  in  communication  with  a  race 
so  evil,  and  a  race  so  evil  could  learn  nothing  from  such  a 
God.  And  then  we  look  about  the  world,  with  our  crude 
estimates  of  good  and  evil  and  our  readiness  to  judge  men 
whom  we  do  not  know,  and  ask  where  are  the  signs  that  God 
has  been  teaching  anything  to  mankind.  Whatever  of  better 
things  men  have  possessed  or  learned  by  experience  we  ascribe 
to  nature  or  the  common  lot.  We  set  it  outside  the  field  of 


150 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


God^s  influence,  and  think  of  him  mainly  as  passing  judgment 
upon  it.  Thus  do  we  miss  the  point. 

Nevertheless  the  faithful  Creator  does  his  work.  The 
teaching  of  life  to  men  is  teaching  of  God.  Men  themselves 
may  attribute  it  to  secondary  sources — to  conscience,  which 
they  take  to  be  ultimate;  to  experience,  which  they  do  not 
trace  beyond  itself;  to  good  influences  among  themselves,  or 
to  nature  in  general.  But  it  is  not  rightly  understood  until 
it  is  perceived  to  be  teaching  of  God  the  faithful  Creator. 
The  voice  of  conscience,  the  growth  of  moral  standards,  the 
fine  didactic  power  of  common  experience,  are  all  from  him. 
Still  more,  he  has  access  as  the  living  Spirit  to  the  spirits  that 
bear  his  likeness,  and  in  the  secret  heart  he  brings  suggestion 
and  inspiration  to  the  man  who  is  receptive  of  such  gifts. 
It  is  true  that  the  effect  of  such  influence  is  far  from  perfect, 
for  there  are  many  reasons  why  moral  teaching  is  received 
by  men  only  in  part,  and  often  only  in  distorted  form.  Un¬ 
formed  minds  can  learn  but  little,  and  minds  astray  will  learn 
amiss.  Yet  moral  teaching,  and  religious  teaching  also,  have 
come  to  mankind  from  the  common  life,  and  not  in  vain.  In 
some  degree  or  other  men  have  always  had  sense  of  duty  and 
knowledge  of  right  and  wrong,  and  have  looked  upward  in  the 
spirit  of  religion.  Virtue  has  always  been  existent  in  the 
race,  society  has  not  broken  up  for  want  of  goodness  to  hold 
it  together,  mutual  influence  has  often  supported  the  things 
for  which  conscience  and  religion  stand,  and  religion  in  spite 
of  all  its  evils  has  nowhere  failed  to  bring  some  uplifting. 
Men  have  always  known  better  than  they  were  doing.  It  has 
always  been  possible  for  them,  following  their  best,  to  live 
in  some  fellowship  with  God — a  fellowship  imperfect  enough 
indeed,  but  such  as  the  faithful  Creator  would  recognize  as 
not  in  vain.  In  some  poor  degree  they  have  done  this;  for 
all  following  of  the  better  part  is  just  so  far  fellowship  with 
God,  and  the  better  part  has  been  followed  in  some  degree  in 
every  day  of  human  experience.  The  degree  indeed  has  been 
sadly  imperfect.  That  inexcusable  missing  or  losing  of  God 
which  Paul  attributes  to  the  Gentile  world  in  the  first  chapter 


CREATOR 


151 


of  Romans  has  been  all  too  real;  but  it  necessarily  implies 
what  Paul  asserts,  namely,  that  God  is  so  in  communication 
with  all  men  that  his  influence  can  be  missed,  or  can  be  utilized 
for  the  highest  good. 

It  is  within  this  primal  creative  relation  that  all  other 
relations  between  God  and  men  are  by  the  nature  of  the  case 
included.  This  needs  no  proof,  for  it  cannot  be  otherwise. 
In  the  light  of  this  original  relation  all  human  affairs  are  to  be 
interpreted,  for  human  affairs  must  always  be  within  the 
domain  of  him  who  gave  the  human  race  its  existence.  In 
view  of  such  creatorship,  mankind  has  always  to  do  with  the 
most  serious  and  gracious  of  beings.  All  men  are  living  in 
closest  relation  to  him  whose  goodness  is  perfect,  the  God  who 
is  worthy  to  create.  There  is  much  to  prevent  men  from 
perceiving  that  they  stand  related  to  such  a  Creator  as  this, 
and  it  is  no  wonder  that  many  doubt  it,  and  some  deny. 
Yet  in  proportion  as  men  learn  to  know  things  as  they  are, 
seeing  with  the  spiritual  vision,  they  find  their  life  to  be  the 
gift  of  such  a  God,  and  their  destinies  to  be  administered  by 
the  giver  of  their  life.  In  all  the  relations  that  are  hereafter 
to  be  considered,  God  the  Creator  stands  in  perfect  character, 
often  misunderstood  by  his  creatures,  but  administering  their 
life  worthily  of  himself. 

Broad  as  these  statements  are,  they  are  less  broad  than  the 
reality.  We  have  spoken  only  of  the  human  race,  for  with 
that  alone  we  are  acquainted,  but  we  no  longer  have  a  right 
to  think  of  God  as  related  only  to  life  upon  our  planet.  We 
must  remember  the  greatness  of  the  universe.  It  is  most 
improbable  that  intelligent  life  is  confined  to  the  race  of  which 
we  are  members.  It  is  true  that  here  we  must  speak  without 
direct  evidence,  but  we  can  confidently  say  that  the  balance 
of  probability  is  vastly  in  favour  of  more  life,  essentially  sim¬ 
ilar  to  our  own.  Concerning  it  the  Christian  thought  is  that 
wherever  spiritual  life  exists,  God  is  its  Creator,  and  stands 
toward  it  in  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to  us,  his  human 
creatures.  Anywhere  in  his  universe,  he  who  has  brought 


152 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


spirits  into  life  is  to  them  a  faithful  Creator,  and  all  relations 
that  they  sustain  to  him  are  included  within  this  one  relation 
which  is  original  and  unchangeable.  The  Giver  of  life  is 
the  righteous  Lord  and  friend  of  life. 

We  thus  carry  our  thought  of  the  Creator  in  relations  with 
spirits  beyond  the  world  in  which  we  live.  We  must  also 
carry  it  beyond  the  time-limits  within  which  our  visible  exist¬ 
ence  is  confined.  It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the 
present  work  to  set  forth  the  evidences  of  human  immortality, 
or  even  to  discuss  at  all  that  greatest  and  most  fascinating  of 
human  facts.  But  it  is  a  proper  part  of  the  definition  of  man 
that  he  is  lifted  by  his  spiritual  kinship  to  his  Creator  into  a 
life  that  transcends  the  limits  of  this  present  world.  The 
spirits  that  God  has  created  differ  from  the  stones  that  he  has 
made,  for  they  partake  in  the  spiritual  nature  of  God  himself. 
There  is  many  a  question  about  that  larger  life  that  we  cannot 
answer,  and  before  the  inconceivable  vastness  of  the  fact  and 
the  issues  that  it  involves  our  imagination  halts;  nevertheless, 
the  fact  holds  us  to  itself,  and  we  lose  sight  of  it  at  our  peril. 
That  what  is  human  is  deathless  is  involved  in  the  Christian 
faith.  In  considering  the  relations  of  man  to  his  God,  we  do 
them  the  deepest  injustice  if  we  look  upon  them  as  limited 
to  the  brief  and  unfinished  life  that  this  world  witnesses. 
They  are  relations  of  a  larger  life.  To  God  himself  also  we 
do  deep  injustice  if  we  dream  that  we  can  interpret  him  as  the 
God  of  this  life  only.  God  is  permanent,  and  so  is  man,  and 
it  is  as  a  permanent  being  that  man  stands  related  to  his  God. 
We  pray,  and  alas  we  sin,  not  as  mortals,  but  as  immortals. 
So  we  must  add  this  to  our  thought  about  Creatorship  and 
what  it  means — that  to  all  the  human  souls  that  exist  or  will 
exist,  beyond  this  mortal  life,  God  stands  and  will  always 
stand  in  the  relation  of  a  Creator,  and  all  that  Creatorship 
involves  is  true.  Forever  do  men  belong  to  God,  and  are 
bound  to  exercise  their  life  in  loyalty  to  the  divine  Friend  who 
gave  it;  and  forever  is  God  toward  them,  as  now,  a  faithful 
Creator,  fulfilling  this  primal  relation  in  fidelity  to  them  and 
to  himself.  This  permanence  of  the  relations  between  God 


FATHER 


153 


and  men  enters  into  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  the  Christian 
doctrine,  and  is  to  be  understood  as  assumed  at  every  point 
in  the  present  exposition. 

2.  FATHER 

In  that  testimony  of  Jesus  which  is  the  vital  source  of  the 
Christian  doctrine,  God  is  represented,  as  we  have  seen,  under 
the  name  of  Father.  The  conception  did  not  originate  with 
Jesus,  or  in  the  Bible,  for  it  is  very  ancient  and  wide-spread, 
appearing,  more  or  less  intelligently  grasped,  in  various  relig¬ 
ions.  The  thought  was  present  in'  the  Old  Testament,  and 
familiar  among  the  people  to  whom  Jesus  spoke.  But  Jesus 
gave  it  a  central  position,  by  teaching  his  disciples  to  address 
God  as  Father  when  they  prayed.  In  no  other  way  could  he 
have  given  it  a  more  central  place  or  proposed  for  it  a  wider 
influence.  But  neither  doctrine  nor  faith  has  done  full 
justice  to  the  Master's  teaching  here,  and  the  conception  of 
God  as  Father  has  been  far  less  influential  than  he  thus  pro¬ 
posed  to  make  it.  If  the  Christian  people  had  learned  really 
to  think  of  God  as  they  address  him  in  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
Christian  history  would  have  been  more  truly  Christian. 

It  was  a  great  advance  when  the  relation  of  God  to  men 
was  represented  thus  by  a  natural  human  relation,  and  no 
longer  by  an  institution.  Human  institutions  have  naturally 
been  taken  for  illustration  here,  and  kingship  oftenest  of  all, 
but  it  fails,  as  they  all  do,  at  a  vital  point.  No  human  royalty 
rests  upon  a  creative  relation.  A  king  is  a  man  among  men, 
with  no  inherent  superiority,  raised  by  agreement  or  by  power 
to  a  position  of  command.  His  relation  to  the  others  is  that 
of  an  equal,  accidentally  elevated.  All  human  kings  and 
kingships  are  of  this  kind;  and  when  we  come  to  think  of 
God  they  serve  but  imperfectly  for  illustration.  Kingship 
does  illustrate  some  aspects  of  that  divine  relation  which  we 
are  seeking  to  understand,  but  not  the  heart  of  it.  It  is  a 
great  gain  when  we  turn  to  that  natural  relation  which  in¬ 
volves  the  gift  of  life.  The  relation  of  parent  to  child  comes 


154 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


nearer  than  anything  else  in  this  world  to  illustrating  the 
fundamental  relation  of  God  to  men,  and  it  was  a  true  reveal¬ 
ing  word,  illumining  the  whole  field,  that  Jesus  uttered  when 
he  bade  men  call  God  Father. 

We  have  already  noted  that  Jesus’  account  of  God  as 
Father  is  practical,  not  speculative.  He  takes  no  pains  to 
tell  in  what  the  fatherhood  is  grounded :  he  shows  what  it  is 
to  the  soul  that  enters  into  it.  He  gave  God’s  fatherhood  as 
a  rest  to  the  soul  and  an  inspiration  and  guidance  to  the  life. 
With  him,  God  is  Father  in  that  he  has  toward  men  the  love 
and  fidelity  that  we  know  best  in  parents :  he  considers  us  his 
own  and  offers  himself  to  us,  he  holds  us  dear  and  prizes  our 
love,  he  is  available  to  us  in  our  needs  as  a  parent  is  to  children. 
He  is  our  greater  likeness  also,  as  the  father  is  the  child’s: 
somehow  we  so  resemble  him  that  we  must  seek  to  resemble 
him  more.  We  are  so  like  him  in  nature  that  it  is  our  normal 
life  to  be  like  him  in  his  richest  graces.  This  is  the  Father¬ 
hood  in  its  practical  form. 

But  though  Jesus  says  no  more  than  this,  there  is  more 
implied.  If  God  regards  men  as  his  own  and  feels  thus 
paternally  toward  them,  there  is  a  reason  for  it:  the  relation 
is  not  constructed  or  invented,  but  rests  on  fact,  and  the  fact 
is  not  far  to  seek.  In  the  thought  of  the  people  to  whom 
Jesus  spoke,  the  creation  of  man  in  God’s  likeness  was  be¬ 
lieved  in.  In  their  Scriptures  God  was  known  as  Creator, 
and  man  as  made  in  his  image.  But  the  creative  relation  and 
the  parental  are  profoundly  alike.  Human  parenthood  im¬ 
plies  the  gift  of  life,  so  far  as  that  is  possible  to  any  but  God, 
and  this  gift  of  life  is  the  ground  of  that  natural  proprietorship, 
so  to  call  it,  in  which  the  child  is  the  parent’s  own.  Moreover, 
there  is  something  to  be  learned  from  this,  that  at  first  the 
child  has  no  idea  that  he  owes  his  life  to  his  parents;  to  him 
fatherhood  and  motherhood  mean  simply  the  love  and  care 
and  trustworthy  providence  of  these  two  persons  greater  than 
himself  who  are  watching  over  him;  but  to  the  parents 
meanwhile  the  tender  and  joyous  fact  is  that  they  have  given 


FATHER 


155 


the  child  his  being,  so  that  he  is  their  very  own,  mysteriously 
a  part  of  their  very  selves.  To  the  child  parenthood  means 
brooding  love  and  faithful  discipline :  to  the  parents  it  means 
all  this,  with  the  thrilling  fact  of  life-giving  as  the  secret  of  all 
other  meanings  that  it  may  bear. 

It  is  under  suggestion  from  human  parenthood  that  Jesus 
bids  us  call  God  Father,  and  we  must  understand  the  name 
accordingly.  Jesus  would  have  us  know  that  the  heavenly 
fatherhood  is  like  the  earthly,  the  divine  is  like  the  human. 
The  feeling  of  fatherhood  is  due  in  God,  as  it  is  in  men,  to  the 
fact  of  fatherhood :  here  also  the  love  and  care,  the  providence 
and  discipline,  have  the  life-giving  as  the  fact  from  which  they 
spring.  The  divine  fatherhood  is  the  tenderer  name  for  the 
creatorship.  Human  beings  are  held  to  God's  heart  as  his 
own  because  they  are  his  own,  since  he  gave  them  their  exist¬ 
ence.  He  must  think  of  the  entire  intelligent  world,  bearing 
his  likeness  through  his  own  will  and  action,  as  a  father 
regards  his  children.  ‘‘Forasmuch  as  we  are  the  offspring  of 
God,"  God  knows  it,  and  looks  upon  us  as  what  we  are. 
Creation  naturally  contemplates  what  we  may  well  call  a 
family  life,  a  life  of  spiritual  unity  and  fellowship  between 
God  and  created  spirits,  and  that  rich  fulfilment  of  father¬ 
hood  which  Jesus  bade  his  friends  accept  is  simply  the  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  the  ideal  of  human  existence.  But  as  in  the  human 
case,  the  Father  is  aware  of  the  relation  long  before  the 
children  suspect  that  it  exists,  and  knows  why  men  are  his  own 
long  before  they  begin  to  understand  it.  God  rejoices  in  the 
sense  of  life-giving,  while  men  only  know  that  they  are  alive. 

This  is  not  the  whole  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood 
of  God,  but  this  is  the  starting-point  of  it  all.  It  cannot  be 
otherwise.  If  God,  knowing  himself  as  Creator,  desired 
to  represent  to  men  in  some  more  expressive  form  the  relation 
of  creatorship,  certainly  the  name  that  he  would  teach  to  them 
must  be  Father.  Since  creatorship  is  the  primary  fact,  it  is 
impossible  to  interpret  fatherhood  in  God  apart  from  it. 
The  conjunction  is  too  natural  and  true  to  be  escaped.  God 
must  feel  toward  the  human  race  as  toward  his  own  spiritual 


156 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


offspring  and  kin.  That  he  does  feel  so,  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  has  always  affirmed — not  always  consistently,  or  in  the 
spirit  of  freedom,  and  yet  really.  Theology  has  sometimes 
felt  constrained  to  deny  it  in  terms,  but  has  always  affirmed 
it  in  fact,  even  though  too  faintly.  Creative  love  and  re¬ 
demptive  love  have  never  been  held  to  be  radically  dis¬ 
tinguishable,  and  that  is  the  whole  matter.  God  brought  a 
race  into  being,  he  loved  it  as  his  own,  he  sought  to  save  it 
from  its  evil,  he  made  himself  known  as  Father  when  he 
showed  it  the  God  to  whom  it  must  return.  This  is  a  uni¬ 
versal  fatherhood  in  God,  grounded  in  the  primary  creative 
relation  and  wrought  out  in  the  work  of  saving  grace. 

Certainly  in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  (Lk.  xv.  11-32) 
Jesus  intended  to  set  forth  such  a  relation  as  this.  In  the 
parable  the  natural  relation  of  father  and  son  was  never 
altered,  though  on  one  side  it  was  forgotten — for  of  course  it 
never  can  be  altered.  The  son  belonged  to  the  father  all  the 
time,  and  the  father  never  forgot  it,  though  the  son  put  it  out 
of  mind.  When  the  son  had  had  enough  of  the  miseries  of  the 
far  country,  it  was  to  his  own  home  that  he  returned,  and  to 
his  own  father.  The  event  that  J esus  illustrated  by  the  parable 
was  the  repenting  of  a  group  of  sinful  men  and  women;  and 
this  he  characterized  as  a  home-coming  to  God.  He  was 
offering  no  theory  of  human  relations  with  God,  but  was 
illustrating  the  truth  as  he  knew  it,  and  showing  what  man  is 
to  God,  even  in  his  sinfulness.  God  is  rightly  represented 
by  father  and  man  by  son.  And  the  elder  brother  also  was 
a  son. 

The  parable  itself,  however,  is  enough  to  show  that  con¬ 
scious  fatherhood  is  not  necessarily  accompanied  by  conscious 
sonship,  or  worthy  fatherhood  by  worthy  sonship.  Here  is  a 
good  father  and  a  bad  son,  a  conscious  father  and  a  son  for¬ 
getful  of  the  relation.  If  the  parable  told  the  truth  about  the 
publicans  and  sinners  who  were  coming  home,  God  as  Father 
had  had  in  them  children  unfaithful  to  their  filial  rank  until 
that  day.  That  creatorship  means  fatherhood  does  not  imply 
that  creaturehood  means  ideal  sonship.  Good  fatherhood 


FATHER 


157 


with  bad  sonship  is  so  well  known  in  this  world  that  there 
ought  to  be  no  difficulty  in  perceiving  that  the  same  may 
exist  in  the  relation  between  God  and  men.  Human  sonship 
to  God  is  practically  unknown  in  its  significance  to  the  most 
of  men,  and  where  it  is  not  unknown  it  is  sinned  against.  The 
Father  of  the  great  family  is  a  perfect  father,  but  the  children 
are  not  ideal  children.  The  family  idea  and  relation, 
so  to  call  it,  is  always  present  in  the  heart  of  God,  but  is 
not  realized  in  the  life  of  men.  “I  have  nourished  and 
brought  up  children  and  they  have  rebelled  against  me’’ 
(Isa.  i.  2). 

But  the  realizing  of  the  fact  of  sonship  is  all  that  is  neces¬ 
sary  for  realizing  the  idea  of  creation  and  the  fulfilling  of  God’s 
thought  for  mankind.  God  has  given  existence  to  a  race  of 
beings  that  bear  his  likeness.  He  is  the  perfect  God,  worthy 
to  be  Father  in  the  fullest  sense  to  all  creatures.  If  all  these 
should  live  as  true  sons  to  him  as  Father,  each  one  of  them 
would  be  fulfilling  the  type  of  his  being  and  the  idea  of  God  in 
creating  him.  Nothing  more  than  this  can  God  intend  or 
desire  for  intelligent  creatures,  for  this  is  utmost  good.  A 
perfect  son  of  God  would  be  simply  a  perfect  man,  in  whom 
the  creative  idea  had  come  to  fulfilment.  A  manifestation  of 
the  sons  of  God  in  the  true  and  full  significance  of  their  re¬ 
lation  to  their  Father  would  be  an  exhibition  of  the  original 
intent  in  the  creation  of  mankind. 

Now  the  Christian  doctrine  affirms  that  in  Christ  God  is 
thus  completing  his  creative  work  upon  men.  Through  the 
work  and  influence  of  Jesus  Christ  the  ideal  of  sonship  comes 
to  fulfilment,  and  the  Fatherhood,  in  its  truest  meaning, 
becomes  a  matter  of  experience.  To  as  many  as  received 
him  he  gave  the  right  to  become  children  of  God  in  actual 
life,  or  granted  free  entrance  into  the  relations  of  the  divine 
family  (Jn.  i.  12).  The  Christian  life  is  distinctly  the  filial 
life,  in  which  God  is  Father  and  man  is  loyal,  aspiring  and 
obedient  child.  It  is  this  that  makes  the  Christian  life  to  be 
the  ideal  human  life,  the  best  life  that  there  is,  the  crown 
of  living.  Its  failures  are  failures  to  attain  success  in  the 


158 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


life  of  sonship,  and  its  successes  are  advances  in  doing  jus¬ 
tice  to  God  as  Father. 

This  practical  aspect  of  the  divine  Fatherhood  is  of  course 
the  one  that  is  most  prominent  in  the  New  Testament. 
Here  sonship  is  no  theoretical  thing:  it  is  a  fact  experienced, 
and  God  as  Father  is  discovered  in  the  life  of  the  soul.  If  we 
begin  at  the  Gospels,  we  find  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  knowing 
the  Father  in  the  experiences  of  a  human  life:  he  looks  to 
God  with  filial  confidence,  and  devotes  himself  to  the  doing 
of  the  Father’s  will.  He  teaches  his  friends  what  God  as 
Father  is  to  them,  and  how  they  are  to  live  as  his  children. 
Farther  on,  when  the  Christian  gift  has  become  embodied  in 
a  wide  experience,  the  glory  is  that  the  Christian  people  find 
themselves  looking  to  God  as  Father  and  rejoicing  to  know 
themselves  his  sons.  The  statement  that  the  Christian  life 
is  the  filial  life  is  a  perfectly  fair  generalization  of  the  contents 
of  the  Epistles.  The  sense  of  God’s  fatherhood  came  in  with 
the  new  life  in  Christ,  and  with  Christ  and  his  salvation  the 
experience  of  it  was  associated.  Sonship  in  the  family  of 
God  appears  as  so  fresh  and  vivid  an  experience  as  to  seem 
virtually  new.  It  is  not  surprising  that  it  was  sometimes 
accounted  a  wholly  new  gift  of  God,  belonging  solely  to  that 
Christian  life  in  which  it  was  now  experienced. 

The  manner  of  entering  upon  the  filial  life  with  God  is 
represented  in  the  New  Testament  in  two  ways.  Sometimes 
it  is  by  a  new  birth  that  one  becomes  a  child  of  God,  and 
sometimes  it  is  by  an  adoption.  In  the  Pauline  writings  the 
adoption  is  more  frequently  mentioned,  and  in  the  Johannine 
the  birth.  It  is  plain  that  either  of  these  expressions  may 
fairly  describe  the  entrance  upon  a  new  life.  God  may  be 
said  to  have  begotten  children,  imparting  a  new  spiritual 
life  wherein  men  are  in  filial  fellowship  with  him,  or  to  have 
adopted  children,  taking  for  his  own  men  who  were  alien  from 
the  life  of  his  holy  spiritual  kindred.  One  may  think  of  him¬ 
self  as  a  born  child  of  God  through  the  birth  of  the  Spirit,  or 
as  an  adopted  child  of  God  through  the  free  act  of  grace. 


FATHER 


159 


A  grateful  heart  may  interpret  the  experience  by  saying, 
**  God  regenerated  me  by  his  own  act,”  or,  “  God  took  me  into 
his  family.”  Either  is  a  true  saying,  in  which  the  experience 
is  well  described.  But  evidently  both  are  not  literal  descrip¬ 
tions  of  the  process,  for  they  are  inconsistent  with  each  other. 
If  either  picture  of  introduction  to.  the  family  is  urged  as 
literally  correct,  the  other  is  ruled  out.  'A  born  child  of  God 
cannot  have  been  adopted  by  him,  and  an  adopted  child  of 
God  was  not  born  into  the  family.  Adoption  and  birth  are 
mutually  exclusive.  This  incompatibility  makes  no  trouble, 
however,  if  we  are  not  more  literal  than  we  need  to  be.  But 
the  presence  of  this  pair  of  terms  makes  it  certain  that  the 
New  Testament  does  not  give  us  a  literal  and  only  correct 
description  of  the  manner  of  entering  filial  life.  .Both 
descriptions  are  figurative,  and  both  are  useful,  but  neither 
of  them  is  exclusive,  and  the  experience  might  be  set  forth 
in  yet  other  ways.  In  fact,  apart  from  connection  with 
fatherhood,  it  is  represented  now  as  a  deliverance,  now  as  a 
creation,  and  now  as  a  resurrection. 

If  we  look  at  the  filial  life  as  the  New  Testament  here  and 
there  portrays  it,  we  shall  see  it  as  a  life  in  which  the  Father¬ 
hood  of  God  is  attaining  to  the  satisfaction  of  its  own  desires 
for  men.  The  ideal,  ‘^I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall 
be  to  me  a  son”  (2  Sam.  vii.  14),  is  coming  somewhat  to  be 
realized.  “Ye  received  not  the  spirit  of  bondage,  again  unto 
fear;  but  ye  received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry, 
Abba,  Father”  (Rom.  viii.  15).  This  fine  enlightening  stroke 
of  the  apostle  Paul  portrays  God  as  One  who  wants  no 
slavish  fear  in  his  presence,  but  would  have  his  child  look 
confidingly  and  joyfully  into  his  eyes.  Here  is  included  all 
that  freedom  and  trustfulness  which  Jesus  encouraged  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  life  in  Christ  is  a  life  in  the 
spirit  of  adoption,  or  of  family  fellowship,  in  contrast  to  life 
in  a  spirit  of  bondage,  or  slavishness,  in  which  fear  is  an  abid¬ 
ing  element.  Father  and  child  are  on  terms  of  friendliness: 
the  child  stands  in  awe,  but  is  not  afraid :  all  slavish  shrinking 
before  God  is  past.  The  servility  of  legalism  has  given  way 


160 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


to  the  freedom  of  filial  love.  It  is  implied,  of  course,  that  the 
Father^s  superiority  has  no  shadow  of  pride,  over-sensitiveness 
or  jealousy,  no  dignity  easily  offended,  no  impatience  or 
quick  temper.  Calm,  just  and  gracious  is  the  Father;  he 
is  not  easily  angered,  and  does  not  readily  take  things  amiss 
with  men.  ‘‘With  him  is  no  lust  of  Godhead:  he  hath  no 
hand  to  bow  beneath,  and  no  foot  that  thou  shouldst  kiss 
it.”  We  have  received  the  spirit  of  adoption.  Father  is  the 
name  of  our  God. 

Within  this  relation  of  Fatherhood  moves  that  rich  and 
inspiring  communion  with  God  which  is  characteristic  of  the 
Christian  life.  It  is  a  communion  that  rests  on  community  in 
character,  aims  and  interests.  The  child  is  to  be  like  the 
Father,  and  has  begun  to  be  so.  “That  ye  may  be  children 
of  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven”  (Mt.  v.  45)  is  the  loftiest 
expression  of  the  Christian  aim,  and  growth  in  likeness  to  the 
Father  and  in  power  to  express  his  character  in  life  is  the 
upward  movement  in  which  Christian  progress  consists. 
“Beloved,  now  are  we  the  children  of  God,  and  it  hath  not 
yet  been  manifested  what  we  shall  be,  but  we  know  that  .  .  . 
we  shall  be  like  him”  (Jn.  iii.  2).  Child  is  to  be  like 
Father — that  is  the  glorious  hope,  and  the  fulfilment  of  the 
hope  has  already  begun.  God  therefore  has  in  the  world 
men  who  spiritually  resemble  him,  even  though  only  in  partial 
and  childish  fashion.  With  them  he  communes,  and  they 
with  him.  They  live  in  his  fellowship,  draw  inspiration  from 
his  grace,  have  his  will  for  their  ideal,  and  represent  their 
Father  in  the  world.  Men  around  them  do  not  know  God 
as  Father  in  such  a  life :  these  men  are  not  of  the  world,  in  that 
they  live  above  it,  in  the  spirit  of  the  family  of  God. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  this  Christian  sonship,  so  con¬ 
trasted  with  the  experience  of  average  men,  should  have 
been  taken  to  correspond  to  a  Fatherhood  all  its  own,  quite 
distinct  from  that  creative  Fatherhood  of  which  we  have 
spoken.  It  has  often  been  thus  understood.  Nevertheless, 
all  difficulty  about  the  difference  is  done  away  when  we  have 


FATHER 


161 


learned  that  this  high  spiritual  fellowship  is  simply  the  ful¬ 
filment  of  that  creative  relation  in  which  God  and  his  creatures 
stand.  This,  a  son  of  God,  is  what  from  of  old  he  meant  by 
man.  In  gathering  Christians  to  his  family,  he  is  only 
finishing  them  as  creatures,  completing  his  design  in  giving 
them  existence.  He  was  always  creatively  their  Father,  and 
now  he  enjoys  that  Fatherhood  over  them  which  creation 
always  contemplated. 

There  is  only  one  Fatherhood  in  God,  and  that  is  grounded 
in  his  creatorship  and  his  character.  There  is  only  one  son- 
ship  for  men,  and  that  is  their  relation  to  the  good  Creator 
who  counts  them  his  own  and  loves  them  with  a  faithful 
parental  love.  But  though  God  is  always  Father,  and 
though  the  creative  parenthood  can  never  be  abolished,  still 
man,  born  to  be  son,  may  be  out  of  his  Father’s  spiritual  life. 
He  may  be  ignorant  of  his  Father,  or  he  may  be  rebellious, 
hostile,  wilfully  astray  from  him.  A  lost  man  is  a  child  lost 
out  of  his  right  place  in  the  family  of  God.  Sonship  is  com¬ 
pleted  only  in  filial  love  and  living.  When  one  enters  upon 
such  living,  he  may  seem  to  himself  to  be  entering  upon  son- 
ship — and  so,  on  his  own  part,  he  is.  Before  him  lies  the 
filial  life  for  which  he  was  created ;  but  all  the  holy  love  and 
life  to  which  Christ  leads  or  can  ever  lead  a  man  will  bring 
him  only  to  full  possession  of  his  birthright  as  a  born  son  of 
the  eternal  Father.  The  birthright  he  was  selling  for  nought, 
but  his  Father  has  brought  him  to  his  place.  Here  in  har¬ 
mony  may  end  the  long  discussion  about  the  Fatherhood  of 
God,  whether  it  is  natural  or  spiritual,  originating  in  creation 
or  in  redemption,  belonging  to  all  or  only  to  those  who  are  in 
Christ.  There  is  no  need  of  its  continuing.  God  is  always 
Father,  and  man  is  always  son;  but  the  relation  may  be  real¬ 
ized  in  full,  or  only  in  part,  or  not  at  all  on  man’s  side;  and 
this  makes  the  difference. 

We  have  said  that  God’s  creatorship  is  the  primary  relation 
of  God  to  other  being,  within  which  all  other  relations  move. 
We  have  now  said  that  the  Fatherhood  is  the  tenderer  name 


162 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


for  the  creatorship,  when  intelligent  and  moral  beings  are  in 
the  field  of  view.  It  follows  then  that  within  the  Fatherhood 
of  God  all  his  other  relations  to  men  are  included,  and  from 
it  they  take  their  character.  God  in  relation  to  men  is  first 
of  all  the  One  who  called  them  into  being,  who  considers  them 
his  own,  and  who  loves  them  with  the  holy  affection  which 
is  his  character.  This  is  to  be  said  before  anything  else  is 
said  concerning  the  relations  between  God  and  men.  If 
there  are  other  moral  beings,  the  same  is  true  of  them,  what¬ 
ever  their  grade  of  life  or  their  character — God  has  given  them 
their  life,  and  holds  them  in  the  affection  of  a  paternal  heart. 
They  also,  in  whatever  world,  may  say  “Father”  when  they 
pray,  and  know  that  they  were  created  for  filial  life  with  God. 
The  range  of  God’s  Fatherhood  is  as  wide  as  the  range  of 
intelligent  existence. 

It  follows  that  the  prayer  that  Jesus  taught  to  his  disciples, 
beginning  with  “Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven,”  is  open  to 
the  use  of  all  who  may  desire  to  use  it.  It  is  the  human 
prayer.  Parents  do  right  when  they  teach  it  to  little  children. 
It  is  right  to  offer  it  in  the  great  congregation.  The  truth  is 
that  every  one  who  sincerely  prays  assumes,  just  so  far,  the 
attitude  of  a  child  in  the  presence  of  the  heavenly  Father,  and 
is  entitled  to  call  him  by  the  paternal  name.  But  there  is  one 
fact  that  must  not  be  overlooked.  One  who  claims  God  as 
his  Father  makes  not  only  a  claim  but  a  promise.  The 
speaking  of  the  name  amounts  to  an  oath  of  allegiance. 
Whoever  calls  God  Father  should  understand  that  he  thereby 
pledges  himself  to  be  toward  God  a  loyal  child.  A  relation 
so  rich  in  moral  meaning  must  not  be  accepted  on  one  side 
only.  There  is  much  loose  and  thoughtless  talk  about  the 
F atherhood  of  God  that  would  be  stilled  at  once  if  this  thought 
came  in  with  power.  To  claim  benefit  of  the  Fatherhood  and 
refuse  the  loyal  sonship  is  to  trifle  with  God  and  man.  Within 
the  Fatherhood  all  the  works  of  divine  grace  and  holiness  are 
wrought,  and  within  the  sonship  all  worthy  works  of  men  are 
to  be  done.  Like  the  father  in  the  matchless  parable,  God 
has  sons  who  are  astray  and  sons  who  have  come  home. 


FATHER 


163 


For  his  sons  who  are  at  home  he  can  do  what  can  never  be 
done  for  sons  who  are  astray,  and'  those  who  are  minded  to 
claim  his  paternal  blessing  must  be  at  home  to  receive  it. 
Even  now  they  are  not  forgotten,  but  only  at  home  can  they 
live  the  blessed  life  of  sonship.  And  only  there,  in  the  family 
fellowship,  can  the  Lord’s  prayer  mean  all  that  the  Lord 
intended  it  to  mean. 

Indeed,  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  doctrine  of  God 
creates  the  practical  doctrine  of  man,  and  in  this  work  the 
Fatherhood  is  the  vital  point.  Whether  they  know  it  or  not, 
men  are  to  one  another  what  their  relation  to  God  makes  them 
to  be.  In  more  than  a  poetic  sense.  Fatherhood  in  God 
implies  brotherhood  among  men.  All  men  have  not  only  a 
common  source  of  their  being,  but  a  common  spiritual  pater¬ 
nity  embracing  them  and  giving  its  own  significance  to  their 
life.  The  relation  that  they  all  bear  to  the  authority  and  love 
of  God  their  Father  binds  them  together  in  a  higher  type 
of  social  fellowship  than  anything  else  in  their  life  can  pro¬ 
duce.  In  a  true  sense  they  are  brothers — brothers  in  origin, 
brothers  in  destiny,  brothers  as  children  of  the  Highest. 
All  the  significance  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  tends  to  make 
men  more  to  one  another,  and  to  help  them  fulfil  their  rela¬ 
tions  in  a  righteous  and  loving  fellowship.  It  is  best  for  all 
interests  in  human  life  that  men  should  learn  to  know  them¬ 
selves  children  of  the  one  Father.  This  one  fact,  well 
learned  and  well  applied,  would  be  a  true  guide  in  all  social 
ethics,  and  would  bring  in  that  kingdom  of  God  which  is  the 
life  of  the  family  of  God. 

The  doctrine  of  divine  paternity,  thus  broadly  interpreted, 
applies  equally  well  to  life  in  its  individual  aspects,  and  in  its 
social.  The  doctrine  of  God’s  comprehensive  relation  to 
men  always  suits  the  case  in  hand,  whatever  it  may  be. 
There  have  been  ages  of  individualism,  when  religion  seemed 
to  be  almost  entirely  a  matter  between  God  and  the  single 
soul.  Then  of  course  the  believer’s  joy  and  hope  stood  in  his 
personal  sonship  to  the  perfect  Father,  and  the  Father’s  will 
was  the  child’s  law.  The  later  view  of  life,  influenced  by 


164 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OP  GOD 


more  recent  experience,  gives  more  prominence  to  the  social 
element.  Individualism  does  not  suffice.  The  problems  of 
living  together  on  a  world-wide  scale  are  thrust  upon  us; 
economic  issues  are  found  to  be  decisive  of  spiritual  destinies ; 
the  value  of  a  man  is  a  point  not  only  in  discussion  but  in 
warfare;  questions  of  righteousness  appeal  to  all  men’s  con¬ 
science;  humanity  suffering  needlessly  cries  out  for  help; 
education  and  opportunity  are  found  to  be  as  necessary  as 
light  and  air;  there  is  need  of  liberty  in  knowledge  and 
inquiry;  and  these  matters,  once  deemed  secular,  are  felt  to 
belong  within  the  circle  of  religion.  Upon  the  old  individual¬ 
istic  basis  they  might  not  belong  there,  but  the  modern  feeling 
is  right  in  insisting  that  they  do.  Certainly  these  are  real 
aspects  of  the  ordering  of  the  family  of  God.  We  misjudge 
him  if  we  think  that  he  cares  only  about  the  individual  welfare 
of  his  children;  he  knows  how  they  treat  one  another,  and  is 
interested  in  the  character  of  the  life  they  live  together. 
He  cares  whether  they  live  as  brothers.  Since  God  is  a 
Father,  all  these  questions  of  personal  value,  of  righteousness, 
of  liberty  and  of  opportunity  concern  interests  that  are  pre¬ 
cious  in  his  sight.  Under  him,  it  is  the  human  way  for  men 
to  live  in  mutual  reverence  and  brotherly  regard.  Thus  the 
Fatherhood  brings  the  questions  of  social  equity  and  fellow¬ 
ship  into  the  field  of  religion.  If  we  are  to  render  to  God  the 
things  that  are  God’s,  we  must  render  to  his  children  the 
things  that  are  his  children’s.  To  serve  his  children  is  to 
serve  him,  and  thus  the  Fatherhood  ushers  in  mercy  and 
truth,  righteousness  and  peace,  to  be  the  inspiration  of  the 
common  life. 


3.  SOVEREIGN 

It  is  natural  to  think  that  the  Creator  will  govern  that  which 
he  has  created.  When  it  appears  that  creatorship  bears  the 
richer  meaning  of  fatherhood,  the  supremacy  of  the  Creator 
who  is  Father  is  more  intelligible  and  certain  still.  When 
in  him  the  perfect  character  is  discerned,  the  certainty  of 


SOVEREIGN 


165 


a  genuine  governance  of  God  is  reinforced  by  his  worthh 
ness.  Thus  in  various  ways  the  sovereignty  of  God  over 
his  universe  is  urged  upon  us  as  a  fact  that  we  cannot 
doubt,  and  we  do  not  wonder  that  it  has  been  a  very  promi¬ 
nent  element  in  Christian  thought.  It  has  been  far  more 
prominent  than  the  fatherhood,  and  has  been  at  once  a 
theme  of  faith  and  reverence  and  a  subject  of  keen  discussion. 
It  meets  us  here  in  our  presentation  of  the  Christian  doctrine, 
and  we  must  inquire  what  we  ought  to  mean  when  we  speak 
of  God  as  Sovereign,  and  what  place  the  doctrine  of  his 
sovereignity  should  hold  in  our  thoughts. 

Sovereignty  is  a  relation:  it  implies  two.  It  is  not  an  ab¬ 
stract  reality  lying  back  of  all  relations  in  which  they  are 
grounded,  although  it  has  sometimes  been  represented  so. 
We  do  not  form  doctrine  concerning  God  outside  of  all  re¬ 
lations,  existing  in  himself  alone,  for  we  have  no  means  of 
doing  so.  All  the  sovereignty  of  which  we  have  knowledge  is 
the  relation  between  God  and  that  which  he  rules.  The 
divine  transcendence  in  which  such  sovereignty  is  grounded 
is  assumed  in  all  doctrine  concerning  practical  relations. 

A  complete  doctrine  of  divine  sovereignty  would  have  to 
do  with  the  relation  of  God  to  all  other  existence.  His  con¬ 
trol  must  be  as  wide  as  the  universe,  and  under  the  title  of 
sovereignty  we  might  treat  of  his  governance  over  existence 
of  every  kind.  But  we  must  notice  now  that  it  is  only  in  his 
relations  with  men  that  the  sovereignty  of  God  is  a  topic  of 
vital  interest  in  religion,  or  in  theology.  In  what  manner 
God^s  will  is  related  to  the  material  universe,  and  how  he 
controls  it,  it  would  be  interesting  to  know;  but  religion  is 
not  directly  concerned  in  that  inquiry,  and  theology  can  gain 
from  it  nothing  more  than  light  upon  a  secondary  question. 
If  it  should  appear  that  God's  will  is  done  there  in  a  manner 
perfectly  absolute  and  arbitrary,  the  fact  would  raise  no  vital 
question  in  religion  or  theology.  Only  when  sovereignty 
touches  upon  the  activities  and  destinies  of  men  does  it  be¬ 
come  a  matter  that  we  cannot  leave  alone.  Sovereignty  is  an 


166 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


extremely  impressive  word,  and  when  it  is  applied  to  human 
affairs  we  feel  the  need  of  knowing  what  it  means,  for  its 
meaning  measures  the  significance  of  our  life.  It  may  be  so 
conceived  as  to  quicken  and  support  our  best  activities,  or 
to  repress  or  even  destroy  our  sense  of  freedom  and  responsi¬ 
bility.  Thus  in  the  human  circle  the  nature  of  God’s  sover¬ 
eignty  is  a  vital  matter,  but  speculations  about  it  beyond  the 
fidd  of  our  own  relations  do  not  concern  us  deeply.  The 
touch  of  sovereignty  upon  our  own  souls  is  what  concerns  us. 

As  to  God’s  sovereignty  over  men,  we  are  justified  in 
regarding  it  as  a  relation  that  moves  within  the  creative  rela¬ 
tion,  which  is  the  fatherly;  and  this  is  a  most  important  fact 
about  it.  It  is  a  paternal  sovereignty.  It  is  often  assumed, 
indeed,  that  this  order  should  be  inverted,  and  that  the  divine 
sovereignty  is  the  circle  within  which  creatorship  and  father¬ 
hood  should  be  understood  to  move.  We  speak  of  a  sover¬ 
eignty  that  corresponds  to  the  relation  between  God  and  his 
creatures;  others,  of  a  relation  between  God  and  his  creatures 
that  corresponds  to  his  sovereignty.  This  is  the  view  that 
regards  sovereignty  as  equivalent  to  determinative  authority 
and  power,  lying  back  of  all  relations.  According  to  it,  the 
sovereign  God,  entitled  to  all  ^  control,  determined  in  his 
sovereignty  that  he  would  create  mankind  and  be  a  Father 
to  certain  men,  whom  he  selected  to  be  his  children. 

But  as  long  as  we  follow  the  leading  of  Jesus,  our  doctrine 
will  not  seek  to  discover  and  interpret  God’s  pre-creative 
decisions.  He  has  offered  us  no  help  in  that  endeavour. 
We  may  follow  our  logic  into  that  region,  but  our  logic  will 
not  find  clear  knowledge  enough  to  work  upon.  The  region 
is  too  far  beyond  our  ken.  The  sole  supremacy  of  God  is  of 
course  the  solid  fact  with  which  we  have  to  do,  but  on  the 
question  how  he  must  exercise  it  in  the  creating  of  a  race  of 
men,  we  may  well  hesitate  to  affirm.  But  we  need  not  affirm, 
for  affirmation  lies  equally  beyond  our  necessities  and  our 
reach.  The  sovereignty  of  God  with  which  religion  and 
the  Christian  doctrine  are  concerned  is  that  which  he  ex¬ 
ercises  within  his  creation,  over  the  men  whom  he  has 


SOVEREIGN 


167 


made  in  his  own  likeness.  It  is  the  practical  sovereignty 
of  God  over  men,  or  of  the  Creator  over  his  intelligent 
creatures.  It  is  the  Lordship  of  the  good  Father.  Be¬ 
cause  he  is  and  has  the  right  to  be  the  source  of  all,  there¬ 
fore  he  governs  all.  A  bad  creator  would  have  no  right  to 
sovereignty  over  his  work;  but  God  is  at  once  our  source  and 
our  type,  the  One  from  whom  we  sprang,  and  to  whom  it  is 
our  normal  destiny  to  rise.  He  therefore  is  our  rightful 
Sovereign,  and  his  sovereignty  is  grounded  in  the  true  Father’s 
right  and  power  to  govern  his  spiritual  offspring.  This  is  the 
way  along  which  the  Christian  doctrine  leads  us  to  approach 
the  sovereignty  of  God. 

The  sovereignty  may  be  better  understood  if  we  inquire  what 
is  the  end  in  view,  or  what  the  Sovereign  designs  to  accomp¬ 
lish.  To  this  the  answer  must  be  that  the  end  in  view  in  the 
sovereignty  of  God  is  the  doing  of  God’s  will.  This  is  the 
Christian  testimony,  from  every  point  of  view,  and  a  joyful 
testimony  it  is.  So  good  is  he,  and  so  excellent  is  his  will, 
that  it  is  the  most  desirable  of  all  possible  things  that  his  will 
may  be  done  in  perfect  measure.  The  will  of  God  is  often 
a  matter  for  philosophic  contemplation,  which  may  be  without 
feeling;  but  whenever  it  is  the  object  of  loyal  regard,  it  ap¬ 
pears  as  the  best  thing  in  all  the  worlds.  The  ninety-sixth 
Psalm  sings  out  the  unspeakable  joy  that  the  psalmist  has  in 
contemplating  the  blessedness  of  the  reign  of  God.  When  he 
reigns,  the  world  is  established  that  it  cannot  be  moved.  It  is 
well  that  the  heavens  rejoice  and  the  earth  be  glad,  that  the 
sea  roar,  and  the  fulness  thereof,  and  that  all  the  trees  of  the 
wood  sing  for  joy  before  him  in  his  sovereign  presence. 
When  his  will  is  done  the  best  is  done,  and  the  doing  of  his 
will  is  the  object  of  his  sovereignty. 

What  will  of  God  do  we  mean,  however,  when  we  say  that 
the  doing  of  God’s  will  is  the  end  in  view  in  his  sovereignty  ? 
The  language  is  ambiguous,  and  by  the  ambiguity,  often 
unnoticed,  the  discussion  of  sovereignty  and  the  thoughts  of 
the  Christian  people  about  it  have  been  much  embarrassed. 


168 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


The  word  does  not  tell  its  own  story.  By  the  will  of  God  is 
sometimes  meant  the  volition,  determination,  decree  of  God, 
and  sometimes  his  choice,  preference,  desire,  requirement. 
It  may  mean  that  God  decides  and  settles  certain  things,  de¬ 
termining  that  they  shall  come  to  pass,  or  that  God  approves 
certain  things,  and  enjoins  them  upon  his  creatures  to  be 
done.  The  statement  that  was  just  now  made  may  mean 
that  God’s  sovereignty  has  for  its  object  the  bringing  into  fact 
of  that  which  he  has  determined  to  be  done,  or  the  doing  of 
that  which  he  desires  and  requires  to  be  done;  that  in  his 
sovereignty  God  brings  to  pass  the  execution  of  his  decrees, 
or  that  he  seeks  the  fulfilment  of  the  moral  desires  that  accord 
with  his  character.  We  may  be  thinking  of  an  arbitrary  will 
(in  no  bad  sense)  which  is  to  be  brought  into  effect  by  himself 
in  his  sovereignty,  or  of  an  ethical  will  that  is  to  be  done  by 
men  under  his  sovereignty;  or  we  may  think  of  his  sovereignty 
as  including  something  of  both  these  elements.  What  is  the 
sovereignty  of  which  the  Christian  doctrine  makes  affirma¬ 
tion?  Do  we  mean  that  God  is  working  out  the  fulfilling 
of  his  appointments,  or  of  his  requirements  ?  of  his  decrees, 
or  of  his  desires?  Which  is  the  Christian  view  of  the 
sovereignty  that  he  exercises  ? 

Since  sovereignty  is  not  an  abstraction  but  a  relation,  we 
must  understand  it,  naturally,  in  the  light  of  what  we  know 
of  the  beings  who  are  concerned.  We  must  interpret  it  in 
view  of  the  nature  of  God  and  man.  The  good  God  and 
Father  will  certainly  stand  as  Sovereign  over  men  in  a  manner 
accordant  with  his  own  nature,  and  with  the  nature  that  he 
has  given  to  them.  A  method  of  sovereignty  that  suits  some 
parts  of  his  creation  is  not  adapted  to  others,  and  we  may 
rely  upon  God  to  exercise  over  men  a  sovereignty  that  corre¬ 
sponds  to  the  nature  of  men,  not  of  plants,  or  of  planets. 
Father  will  be  true  to  the  nature  of  children,  and  to  his  own. 
When  we  say  this,  our  attention  is  directed  to  a  quality  in  the 
nature  of  both  that  gives  light  upon  the  manner  in  which  we 
should  think  of  his  sovereignty. 

A  fixed  point  in  all,  Christian  doctrine  is  the  freedom  of 


SOVEREIGN 


169 


God.  Personality,  creatorship,  righteousness,  grace,  all 
imply  it.  All  types  of  Christian  thinking  involve  it.  Predes- 
tinarian  doctrine  in  every  form  asserts  it  strenuously  and 
without  reserve.  Such  doctrine  has  sometimes  been  made 
so  consistent  as  to  deny  that  any  one  else  but  God  is  free,  but 
to  him  has  always  been  attributed  perfect  liberty  of  choice  and 
action.  In  making  his  unchangeable  determinations  of  all 
that  is  to  come  to  pass,  and  in  so  controlling  natural  events 
and  human  actions  that  these  appointments  of  his  shall  all 
be  realized,  he  has  been  regarded  as  absolutely  free,  able  to 
appoint  as  he  will,  to  choose  as  he  will,  and  to  accomplish  as 
he  will.  Predestinarian  doctrine  afhrms  freedom  absolute 
and  unmodified,  and  proclaims  it  with  perfect  confidence,  but 
it  is  the  freedom  of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  doctrine  of  an 
opposing  type  not  only  leaves  the  freedom  of  God  unchal¬ 
lenged,  but  affirms  it  as  a  prime  certainty.  It  has  rested  its 
opposition  to  predestinarian  doctrine  upon  the  claim  that 
freedom,  so  far  from  belonging  to  God  alone,  is  an  indis¬ 
pensable  element  in  the  life  of  any  spiritual  being,  whether 
God  or  man.  God  would  not  be  God  without  it,  and  in  men, 
who  are  created  in  the  likeness  of  God,  a  genuine  moral 
liberty  is  as  essential  as  it  is  in  God  himself.  God,  who  is 
the  perfect  type  of  freedom,  has  given  freedom  to  his  human 
creatures  as  their  characteristic  possession,  and  in  them  it  is 
inalienable.  He  who  gave  it  may  surely  be  trusted  not  to 
take  it  away  or  put  dishonour  upon  it. 

Thus  freedom  is  a  fixed  point  in  all  theology,  but  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  has  been  interpreted  in  predestinarian  style 
or  in  the  opposite,  according  as  freedom  has  been  insisted  upon 
as  belonging  to  God,  or  to  God  and  men.  In  this  contrast 
it  certainly  appears  that  the  opposition  has  the  better  case. 
If  we  know  anything  about  ourselves  we  know  that  such  free¬ 
dom  as  supports  responsibility  and  gives  moral  meaning  to 
life  is  a  part  of  our  human  outfit.  Mystery  hangs  about  our 
freedom,  and  certainly  we  cannot  claim  that  it  is  ideally 
complete,  yet  we  always  assume  it  in  real  life,  and  cannot 
live  without  assuming  it.  We  know,  too,  whence  our  freedom 


170 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


came:  it  is  a  part  of  God’s  gift  in  constituting  our  life,  and 
the  ideal  of  it,  as  of  all  our  essential  powers,  exists  in  him 
forever.  So  freedom  belongs  to  both;  and  when  we  inquire 
into  the  nature  of  God’s  sovereignty,  we  are  constrained  to 
call  it  a  sovereignty  of  the  free  God  over  beings  to  whom  he 
has  granted  freedom  in  likeness  to  his  own.  It  is  a  sover¬ 
eignty  of  an  Actor  over  actors,  of  a  Will  over  wills.  All 
questions  about  it  are  to  be  answered  in  the  light  of  this  fact. 
It  is  certain  that  we  cannot  answer  all  the  questions  that  we 
may  ask,  but  to  this  central  fact  in  the  nature  of  the  Ruler 
and  the  ruled  we  must  always  be  faithful.  We  have  to 
acknowledge  a  sovereignty  that  treats  men  as  what  they  are, 
and  does  justice  to  the  freedom  that  belongs  to  responsible 
spiritual  life. 

We  may  try  to  follow  this  principle  out,  and  conceive  of 
a  sovereignty  of  a  free  God  over  free  men,  or  of  a  divine  will 
over  human  wills.  If  we  try  to  conceive  a  sovereignty  over 
beings  who  act,  it  will  not  be  natural  to  think  of  one  that  con¬ 
sists  in  predetermining  their  actions.  That  kind  of  control 
is  not  congruous  with  the  active,  free,  responsible  nature  of 
God  and  man.  It  is  claimed  indeed  that  God’s  predestina¬ 
tion  does  not  interfere  with  the  freedom  of  man;  but  the 
claim  has  never  been  satisfactorily  vindicated  as  credible. 
A  sovereignty  that  cancels  liberty  is  not  the  sovereignty  of 
God  over  men.  The  will  of  God  that  is  to  be  done  cannot  be 
a  strict  foreordaining  will.  But  on  the  other  hand  we  can 
well  understand  a  sovereignty  that  seeks  the  doing  by  men  of 
the  ethical  will  of  God  and  the  bringing  about  of  the  moral 
results  in  which  he  takes  delight.  It  is  this  ethical  will  that 
is  so  demonstrably  glorious  and  good  for  all  creation.  The 
will  of  God  that  is  to  be  done  as  the  end  of  the  divine  sover¬ 
eignty  is  that  good  and  acceptable  and  perfect  will  of  God 
which  men  can  do  by  acting  out  their  nature,  and  the  doing 
of  which  is  their  glory  and  their  hope.  What  men  are  to  do 
in  pursuance  of  the  fact  that  God  is  sovereign  over  them  is 
not  to  yield  their  wills  to  his  irresistible  determinations,  but 
to  yield  their  wills  to  his  unalterable  moral  standard,  and  be 


SOVEREIGN 


171 


true  subjects  of  the  authority  that  belongs  to  his  eternal 
goodness.  This  is  what  we  mean  when  we  call  God  by  the 
worthy  name  of  Lord.  We  may  think  that  we  ought  to  mean 
something  very  different  when  we  call  him  Sovereign,  but 
we  cannot  show  that  he  expects  it  of  us.  So  far  as  the  claim 
of  his  sovereignty  on  human  thought  or  action  is  concerned, 
God  is  to  us  men  the  King  of  Goodness,  whose  will  we  are  to 
do. 

There  is  more  to  be  said,  however,  for  this,  true  as  it  is, 
does  not  exhaust  the  meaning  of  the  sovereignty  that  we 
must  attribute  to  God.  We  have  not  told  all  that  his  sover¬ 
eignty  includes  when  we  have  spoken  of  his  right  to  lay 
requirements  on  the  human  will.  If  this  had  been  the  whole, 
sovereignty  could  never  have  loomed  as  large  as  it  has  in  the 
field  of  thought.  Sovereignty  of  another  kind  is  upon  us  all. 
The  truth  remains  that  we  men  are  in  the  hands  of  God,  the 
Creator,  Father  and  Governor  of  our  life.  His  sovereignty 
over  us  includes  a  power  of  control  that  naturally  belongs  to 
him  and  the  right  to  hold  and  use  that  power.  We  deal  with 
it  in  this,  that  it  is  ours  to  acknowledge  the  sovereign  God  as 
entitled  to  appoint  and  establish  the  conditions  of  our  life. 
Independently  of  us  he  has  formed  and  maintained  the  world 
in  which  we  live,  and  determined  the  influences  by  which  we 
as  men  should  be  affected.  He  has  made  our  life  in  general 
to  be  such  as  it  is,  and  has  thus  provided  the  school  in  which 
human  character  is  to  be  developed.  Having  given  us  free¬ 
dom  in  his  own  likeness,  he  has  prepared  the  field  in  which 
it  is  to  work.  Over  these  matters  it  is  not  possible  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  that  we  should  have  any  control,  and  it  is 
for  us  to  acknowledge  that  they  lie  within  the  field  of  the 
sovereignty  of  God. 

It  is  here  that  the  mysteriousness  of  our  life  so  often  per¬ 
plexes  and  baffles  us.  Sometimes  it  breaks  our  hearts.  The 
truth  is  that  the  world  in  which  God  in  his  sovereignty  has 
placed  us  is  a  very  strange  and  perplexing  world.  Often  we 
fail  to  see  that  it  is  adapted  to  his  purpose  or  to  our  good. 


172 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Sometimes  we  suspect  that  we  are  in  the  hands  of  chance, 
tossed  about  by  blind  forces,  and  sometimes  that  we  are  in 
the  hands  of  arbitrary  power  that  deprives  us  of  all  control. 
It  is  out  of  this  sense  of  human  insufficiency  and  helplessness, 
when  coupled  with  a  submissive  recognition  of  the  perfect 
supremacy  of  God,  that  belief  in  absolute  predestination  has 
come.  We  should  not  regard  that  belief  as  a  peculiarity  of 
Christians,  or  as  originating  in  divine  revelation.  The  facts 
that  suggest  it  are  world-wide,  and  all  religions  have  had  to 
deal  with  them.  What  is  known  in  the  Christian  world  as 
Calvinism  represents  a  vast  element  in  human  thinking,  and 
is  simply  one  of  the  human  interpretations  of  the  mystery 
of  life.  For  very  many  that  doctrine  has  helped  to  give 
stability  to  life,  and  has  afforded  rest  from  one  class  of  the 
human  perplexities.  But  as  we  have  just  seen,  the  doctrine 
of  predestination  does  not  accord  with  the  nature  of  the 
human  soul,  which  was  framed  to  be  trained  through  the 
exercise  of  freedom.  No  more  than  the  doctrine  of  mere 
chance,  at  the  opposite  extreme,  does  it  solve  the  problem. 
There  is  a  sovereignty  of  God  in  life,  but  it  is  not  a  sovereignty 
that  works  by  unchangeable  decrees  and  foreordains  all  that 
men  are  to  do.  Perhaps  this  is  the  simplest  of  all  the  explana¬ 
tions  of  the  universal  mystery,  but  it  is  too  simple  to  satisfy 
the  facts. 

We  can  make  no  full  solution,  and  yet  we  can  do  some- 
thiag  toward  describing  this  aspect  of  divine  sovereignty. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  we  are  in  the  hands  of  God,  whose 
sovereignty  is  exercised  in  establishing  the  conditions  of  our 
life.  To  do  this  is  his  right  because  he  is  the  giver  of  our 
life,  and  because  he  is  worthy  to  take  care  of  that  which  he 
has  given.  This  indeed  is  a  necessary  part  of  his  creative 
work — to  place  us,  his  creatures,  in  the  world  which  he  has 
created.  In  creating  his  world,  in  fact,  he  brought  us  forth, 
and  the  life  that  we  find  mysterious  is  the  life  in  which  he  saw 
fit  to  train  us  for  higher  existence.  He  understands  it,  if 
we  do  not.  So  we  accept  our  lot  and  portion  as  from  him. 
We  acknowledge,  though  often  through  tears,  that  his 


SOVEREIGN 


173 


sovereign  power  and  right  have  placed  us  where  we  are,  and 
subjected  us  to  the  influences  that  are  upon  us.  We  do  not 
claim  to  understand  our  lot,  but  we  trust  him  who  appointed 
it.  Because  we  believe  that  God  is  worthy  to  be  the  Sovereign 
of  our  affairs,  we  accept  our  life  with  confidence,  and  gladly 
subject  ourselves  to  that  moral  sovereignty  which  holds  us  to 
the  doing  of  his  will. 

We  may  ask  whether  sovereignty,  thus  conceived,  repre¬ 
sents  any  advance  upon  the  relation  of  Father,  or  of  Creator. 
It  is  evident  that  such  sovereignty  comes  naturally  and 
worthily  out  of  that  Creatorship  which  is  Fatherhood,  or 
rather  is  a  genuine  part  of  it.  These  different  names,  though 
quite  distinguishable  in  definition,  really  cover  one  field  and 
are  closely  alike  in  meaning.  The  perfect  character  lies  back 
of  all,  making  sure  the  right  of  God  to  be  Creator,  and  to  be 
Father  to  his  creatures.  The  character  that  justifies  him  in 
being  Creator  entitles  him  also  to  be  Sovereign  over  all  that 
he  creates.  The  Sovereignty  develops,  as  we  shall  see,  into 
Moral  Government  and  Providence,  while  the  perfect  Father¬ 
hood  becomes  a  Saviourhood  when  men  are  in  need.  In 
truth  the  relation  of  God  to  us  is  but  one,  though  for  us  it 
may  take  many  forms  and  bear  many  names.  The  good 
God  is  Creator,  Creator  is  Father,  Father  is  Sovereign,  and 
the  sovereignty  is  the  authority  of  the  good  Father  over  his 
children.  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should  labour  to  keep 
these  characters  wholly  separate;  or  rather,  if  we  are  to  under¬ 
stand  them,  it  is  necessary  that  we  let  them  flow  together. 
God  is  but  one  in  all  of  them.  Just  as  the  modern  psychology 
makes  of  the  mind  not  a  group  of  separate  faculties  but  a  unit 
working  in  many  ways,  so  the  right  doctrine  represents  God 
not  as  an  aggregate  of  attributes  or  relations,  but  as  one 
Being,  a  Spirit,  who  fills  many  relations  and  sends  his  infinite 
energy  forth  in  many  works.  So  no  one  of  these  relations  is 
independent  of  the  others:  all  of  them,  rather,  are  forms  of 
that  one  comprehensive  relation  in  which  God  who  gave 
us  our  life  stands  to  us  who  owe  our  life  to  him. 


174 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


4.  MORAL  GOVERNOR 

God  has  to  do  with  men  as  moral  actors,  and  exercises 
over  them  in  that  character  a  moral  government.  The  name 
is  an  old  one,  but  it  is  a  misfortune  that  we  have  not  a  better, 
for  the  mention  of  a  government  almost  inevitably  brings 
human  governments  to  mind,  and  we  think  of  God  as  ruling 
after  the  manner  of  men.  In  some  stages  of  life  human 
governments  have  been  helpfully  employed  for  illustration 
of  the  divine,  but  at  best  they  are  imperfect  and  misleading 
illustrations.  Much  harm  has  come  from  depending  too 
much  upon  them,  and  the  day  of  their  usefulness  for  the 
illustrative  purpose  is  now  past.  God’s  government  is  the 
only  one  of  its  kind,  since  it  is  grounded  in  his  nature  and  his 
relations  to  men,  to  neither  of  which  any  parallel  exists. 
So  we  may  wish  that  our  thoughts  about  it  were  not  so  likely 
to  be  coloured  by  institutions  that  differ  from  it  more  deeply 
than  they  resemble  it.  Yet  to  call  God  a  Moral  Governor  is 
right,  and  Moral  Government  is  a  good  name  for  one  relation 
between  him  and  men. 

Of  course  any  government  of  God  over  men  moves  within 
the  sphere  of  his  creatorship.  It  means  that  the  Giver  of 
moral  life  administers  that  life  in  accordance  with  its  nature, 
and  thus  fulfils  his  relation  to  that  which  he  has  created. 
This  again,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  the 
government  of  God  moves  within  the  sphere  of  his  fatherhood. 
Moral  government  is  the  Creator’s  jurisdiction  over  his 
creatures,  or  the  Father’s  discipline  over  his  children.  It  is 
no  relation  between  aliens,  it  is  a  family  relation.  The 
children  may  not  know  it  to  be  such,  but  when  they  come  to 
see  their  life  either  in  the  Christian  light  or  in  the  true  light 
of  nature  they  find  it  out. 

The  moral  government  of  God  is  absolutely  universal, 
extending  to  all  moral  beings,  whether  of  the  human  race 
or  not.  However  many  living  spirits  there  may  be  or  have 


MORAL  GOVERNOR 


175 


been  within  the  universe,  we  cannot  imagine  more  than  one 
administration  of  their  spiritual  life.  Since  the  one  God  acts 
always  from  his  own  unchangeable  character,  we  are  sure 
that  he  has  only  one  principle  of  moral  administration,  for¬ 
ever  and  everywhere.  Forms  and  modes  will  differ,  but  the 
field  is  the  universe,  and  the  period  is  the  entire  duration  of 
life,  and  one  God  rules  the  whole  upon  one  ethical  principle. 
Moral  government  is  single,  and  universal.  This  is  the 
meaning  of  monotheism,  and  this  is  the  teaching  of  Chris¬ 
tianity. 

At  present  we  are  concerned  with  only  one  world,  but  in 
considering  this  we  need  the  lesson  of  universality.  The 
moral  government  of  God  over  men  is  single,  and  universal: 
it  is  as  broad  as  humanity,  and  the  same  for  all  human  beings. 
Within  humanity  there  are  differences  but  no  fundamental 
distinctions,  and  all  men  are  one  in  their  relation  to  God 
their  moral  governor.  This  the  Christian  doctrine  has  always 
affirmed,  but  not  always  perceiving  how  true  it  is.  It  has 
always  been  held  that  all  men  are  under  such  government  of 
God,  and  yet  current  views  of  moral  government  have  rendered 
the  belief  partly  ineffective.  It  has  been  common  to  associate 
moral  government  with  special  parts  or  features  of  human 
experience,  rather  than  with  the  whole.  Christian  teachers 
have  often  seemed  to  assume  that  it  could  not  exist  without 
a  degree  of  intelligence  concerning  God  that  most  men  do 
not  possess;  and  it  has  been  associated  with  the  presence  of 
legislation,  or  of  clear  revealing  light,  from  God.  Since 
distinct  revelation  was  supposed  to  be  thus  implied,  the  strong 
and  effective  everyday  operations  of  God  with  men  have 
been  thought  of  as  practically  confined  to  the  biblical  field. 
The  law  of  Moses  has  been  regarded  as  the  divine  law  for 
mankind,  and  even  called  the  moral  law  of  God.  It  has  been 
understood  how  under  the  Christian  light  moral  government 
could  be  a  strong  and  vital  reality,  but  it  has  not  been  so 
plain  how  it  could  be  the  same  without  that  light.  Thus  it 
has  come  to  pass  that  moral  government  was  preached  as  an 
intelligible  reality  for  the  privileged  among  men,  but  as  a 


176 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


somewhat  mysterious  if  not  doubtful  reality  for  the  un¬ 
privileged. 

But  no  such  limitation  or  division  is  valid.  We  must  not 
suppose  that  special  revelation,  or  divine  statute,  or  large 
knowledge  of  God,  is  necessary  for  genuine  moral  govern¬ 
ment  of  God  over  men.  If  there  exists  anything  that  is 
worthy  of  that  name,  all  men  alike  are  under  it.  If  that  is  the 
case,  it  cannot  require  anything  that  only  a  part  of  men  pos¬ 
sess.  It  must  be  grounded  on  the  human  side  not  in  special 
conditions  of  any  kind,  but  in  human  nature  itself.  Any  law 
of  God  for  all  mankind  must  be  either  proclaimed  to  all  or 
written  in  the  nature  of  all.  But  no  law  has  been  proclaimed 
to  all.  The  Mosaic  law  was  never  imposed  upon  all  men, 
and  the  obligation  that  comes  with  the  Christian  light  has  not 
yet  gone  forth  upon  all  humanity.  The  only  law  from  God 
for  all  men  is  written  in  their  nature  as  men :  if  this  does  not 
hold  them  to  him  by  a  valid  bond,  then  nothing  does.  Only 
upon  that  which  is  natural  to  God  and  men  can  universal 
moral  government  be  founded,  and  that  which  is  natural 
to  God  and  men  is  a  sufficient  foundation  for  moral  govern¬ 
ment.  The  actual  moral  government  of  God  implies  as 
necessary  to  itself  nothing  more  than  that  God  and  men  exist, 
with  their  respective  natures  and  in  their  mutual  relations. 
It  takes  various  forms  in  various  conditions  of  life,  but  the 
government  itself  is  simply  the  natural  result  of  the  actual 
relation  between  such  a  Being  as  God  and  such  beings  as 
men.  God  and  men  existing,  it  follows,  and  is  the  same  for 
all.  Narrower  definitions  have  been  possible  in  days  of 
narrower  conceptions  of  existence,  but  the  time  for  them  is 
past,  never  to  return. 

In  the  light  of  God  and  man,  therefore,  the  moral  govern¬ 
ment  must  be  defined.  As  to  the  nature  of  God,  all  that  has 
been  said  of  him  should  now  be  in  mind.  The  fact  before 
us  is  that  men  stand  in  moral  relation  with  their  Creator, 
Father  and  rightful  Lord,  the  God  altogether  good,  worthy  of 
all  their  reverence,  love  and  loyalty.  He  in  whom  all  good- 


MORAL  GOVERNOR 


177 


ness  dwells  complete  has  rightful  authority  over  them.  He 
is  One,  the  same  to  all,  and  is  unchangeable  in  perfection. 
He  is  the  source  of  all  spiritual  ideals  that  can  ever  dawn 
upon  the  sight  of  men.  His  perfect  character  is  on  the  side 
of  all  that  resembles  it,  and  against  all  that  contradicts  it. 
And  his  creatorship  and  goodness  together  give  him  sole  and 
perfect  right  to  be  the  moral  governor  over  created  spirits. 
This  is  the  Christian  view  of  the  Being  whose  nature  deter¬ 
mines  the  nature  of  moral  government. 

From  the  nature  of  God  as  throwing  light  uponjnoral 
government,  we  turn  to  the  nature  of  man.  Certainly  the 
moral  administration  through  which  destinies  are  wrought 
out  must  be  adapted  to  the  constitution  and  life  of  the  beings 
who  are  under  it.  In  order  to  conceive  rightly  of  God’s 
moral  government,  we  must  conceive  rightly  of  men,  what 
they  are,  whence  they  came,  whither  they  go,  and  how  their 
proper  destiny  may  be  attained. 

The  nature  of  human  life  must  of  course  be  described  in 
terms  of  present  knowledge.  From  an  origin  in  animal  life, 
the  human  race  has  advanced,  and  is  still  advancing,  by 
growth  of  the  soul.  Mental  powers  have  been  developed 
from  lower  to  higher  grade,  and  are  still  gaining  in  largeness 
and  force.  Personality  has  been  attained,  and  is  always 
receiving  enrichment  from  experience.  Relations  that  can¬ 
not  be  sustained  without  developing  moral  meanings  have 
developed  the  moral  life.  Conscience  has  become  an  abiding 
reality.  Religion  has  become  a  constant  element  in  life,  and 
capacity  for  religion  has  grown  as  ages  passed.  Man  is  ever 
becoming  more  fully  man,  by  the  development  of  that  growing 
element  in  him  which  bears  fhe  likeness  of  God.  The  older 
view  of  humanity  was  that  God  created  a  being  in  his  own 
likeness  at  a  stroke :  the  newer  view  is  that  he  brings  a  being 
to  his  own  likeness  by  a  process,  through  gradual  development 
of  his  powers.  Life  is  God’s  workshop  for  the  creation  of  the 
soul. 

In  saying  this  we  are  not  obliged  to  give  a  psychological 
account  of  the  soul  and  what  it  consists  in.  We  may  leave 


178 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OP  GOD 


science  to  take  its  time  in  solving  the  problems  of  human 
nature,  for  our  present  interpretation  of  life  is  not  dependent 
upon  the  result.  Whether  the  deep  questions  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  soul  are  ever  answered  or  not,  the  facts  that  define  the 
moral  government  of  God  are  the  same.  In  man  there  is  an 
element  that  survives  from  below,  and  an  element  that  has 
gradually  entered  in  the  higher  stages  of  life.  He  is  a 
complex  being,  with  one  part  developed  on  the  basis  of 
another,  the  spiritual  on  the  basis  of  the  animal.  In  the 
present  life  the  two  elements  are  not  to  be  disentangled  and 
separated:  neither  is  to  abolish  the  other:  but  they  need 
to  be  adjusted  to  each  other,  and  trained  to  such  action  as 
is  normal  to  the  whole  man.  What  kind  of  life  is  normal  to 
this  complex  being,  it  is  easy  to  see.  His  proper  type  is  not 
behind  him,  but  before;  not  beneath,  but  above.  It  is  his 
proper  destiny  to  make  more  and  more  of  his  higher  powers, 
and  let  his  whole  life  be  controlled  by  them.  It  was  once 
normal  for  him,  that  is  for  his  ancestors,  to  be  ruled  by  powers 
and  passions  that  are  characteristic  of  the  lower  world  from 
which  he  came;  but  when  a  soul  has  been  born  in  him  such 
domination  is  normal  no  longer.  The  lower  powers  still 
exist,  but  now  that  the  soul  has  come  they  are  bound  to  take 
a  secondary  place,  and  yield  the  supremacy  to  the  new  and 
higher  element.  The  soul  struggles  for  supremacy,  and  for 
life  worthy  of  its  rank — this  is  the  human  career  and  conflict. 
And  all  the  highest  possibilities  of  the  soul,  even  to  the  height 
of  well-balanced  and  perfect  virtue,  are  included  in  that  which 
it  is  normal  for  life  to  bring  forth. 

These  are  the  conditions  of  the  moral  government  of  God. 
God  altogether  good  has  given  existence  to  a  race  of  men 
in  whom  the  highest  possibilities  have  been  planted,  but 
planted  in  the  midst  of  elements  that  must  be  outgrown  and 
left  behind  as  the  higher  life  develops.  When  we  say  that 
God  is  moral  governor  over  such  a  race,  we  affirm  such  facts 
as  these:  that  the  endowments  of  the  race  are  expressions  of 
God’s  will  concerning  it;  that  the  normal  destiny  of  men  is 
of  God’s  choice  and  appointment;  that  he  is  seeking  for  man 


MORAL  GOVERNOR 


179 


the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  his  nature,  and  is  requiring  it 
of  him;  that  in  dealing  with  moral  meanings  in  his  life  man 
is  dealing  with  God  as  well  as  with  nature  and  himself;  and 
that  from  God’s  moral  administration  of  his  life  he  can  no 
more  escape  than  from  his  own  nature.  We  imply  that  in 
his  moral  governance  God  is  seeking  the  end  that  he  sought 
in  creation,  and  carrying  his  creative  work  toward  completion. 
The  character  that  is  normal  to  the  growing  human  spirit  is 
no  other  than  the  character  of  God  himself,  in  finite  measure; 
wherefore  God  is  on  the  side  of  the  spirit  in  its  great  struggle 
with  that  which  is  below  it,  and  that  growth  and  enthrone¬ 
ment  of  the  soul  which  is  normal  to  human  nature  is  the  object 
of  his  endeavour.  He  gave  moral  meaning  to  life  when  he 
gave  mankind  its  endowments,  and  that  meaning  he  is  seeking 
to  realize.  Thus  his  moral  administration  is  intended  to 
promote  the  good  of  the  governed  in  the  highest  sense,  for 
it  insists  upon  the  worthiest  choice,  the  supremacy  of  the 
spirit,  and  the  training  of  men  to  the  divine  likeness. 

We  have  said  that  a  law  of  God  is  written  in  the  nature  of 
man,  clear  and  comprehensive  enough  to  justify  a  moral 
government  on  the  basis  of  it.  What  law  or  requirement  of 
God  is  thus  written  in  human  nature?  Some  may  doubt 
wheth*er  so  clear  and  comprehensive  a  requirement,  made 
known  to  men  in  their  nature,  can  be  found.  The  difficulty 
is  due  to  the  long  failure  to  recognize  God  as  the  communicat¬ 
ing  God,  always  in  touch  with  the  spirits  that  he  has  created. 
Placing  God  mainly  outside  the  natural  order  of  life,  and 
thinldng  that  he  can  communicate  with  men  only  by  special 
and  supernatural  action,  we  have  assumed  that  there  was  no 
genuine  law  from  him  unless  it  was  proclaimed,  certified  and 
recorded.  If  there  was  no  messenger  there  was  no  message: 
if  there  was  no  legislation,  there  seemed  to  be  no  law.  Yet 
even  while  picturing  the  matter  thus,  we  have  insisted  that 
all  men  are  somehow  under  natural  obligation  and  responsi¬ 
bility  to  God,  the  truth  of  nature  being  too  strong  for  our  nar¬ 
row  definitions.  God  is  the  communicating  God,  the  world 


180 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


is  his  organ,  what  life  teaches  he  teaches,  duty  is  his  require¬ 
ment,  conscience  is  his  voice,  and  all  life  involves  responsi¬ 
bility  to  him. 

What  then  is  the  law  of  God  written  in  human  nature? 
It  is  that  a  man  must  be  loyal  to  his  better  part,  and  do  the 
best  that  he  knows.  The  normal  life,  or  the  only  life  in 
which  he  can  prosper  and  be  himself,  is  the  life  that  does 
honour  to  the  soul  as  supreme  in  the  complex  constitution  of 
man.  Nature  itself  calls  for  loyal  honour  to  the  higher  life. 
If  this  is  refused,  nature  sees  to  it  that  man  relapses  toward 
that  from  which  he  came,  and  loses  his  proper  destiny.  Of 
course  this  broad  demand  of  nature  includes  innumerable 
specific  requirements.  It  prohibits  the  dominance  of  the 
sensual  life  over  the  soul,  and  demands  all  that  makes  up 
high  character.  Whatsoever  things  are  true,  honourable, 
righteous,  pure,  lovely  and  of  good  report,  if  there  be  any 
virtue  and  if  there  be  any  praise,  all  these  are  required 
of  man  by  the  normal  law  of  his  being.  In  personal  and 
in  social  life,  in  work  and  play,  in  secular  transactions  and 
in  the  life  of  religion,  nature  requires  that  he  keep  his  body 
under,  that  he  subordinate  the  secondary  part  of  him¬ 
self  to  the  primary,  that  he  set  his  affections  on  things  that 
are  above,  that  he  help  his  soul  to  its  due  supremacy.  If 
he  does  this,  he  acts  out  his  true  nature:  if  not,  he  is  false  to 
his  real  self.  And  this  law  of  nature  is  the  law  of  God  who  is 
the  source  of  nature.  God  who  created  man  created  him 
thus,  and  created  him  thus  in  love.  The  infinite  goodness 
calls  him  to  do  justice  to  his  higher  self,  and  all  the  divine 
authority  is  in  the  call.  This  is  enough  to  constitute  a  moral 
government  of  God  over  all  men,  of  every  age  and  place,  in 
whom  are  found  the  higher  and  the  lowe*r  life. 

Implied  in  this  broad  demand  that  a  man  be  loyal  to  his 
higher  part  are  two  principles,  or  methods,  that  belong  to 
moral  government.  One  is  the  demand  that  a  man  shall  do 
the  good  that  he  knows.  The  other  is  the  principle  that  a 
man  shall  reap  as  he  has  sown. 


MORAL  GOVERNOR 


181 


As  to  the  first  of  these  principles:  God  desires  the  right 
and  good  for  men,  and  therefore  requires  the  right  and  good 
from  men;  and  it  follows  that  whatever  is  known  by  them  as 
right  and  good  is  required  of  them  as  duty.  The  claim  is 
universal  and  incessant  that  a  man  shall  do  the  thing  that  he 
knows  to  be  good  and  right.  There  is  no  need  of  written  law 
or  special  revelation  to  make  this  an  effective  claim.  It  is 
written  in  life  and  spoken  by  conscience.  Men  understand 
it  variously  according  to  their  intelligence  and  character,  but 
the  law  itself,  that  a  man  must  do  his  ethical  best,  is  the 
law  of  humanity,  which  may  be  disobeyed,  but  from  whose 
authority  there  is  no  escape.  Its  force  is  not  dependent 
upon  large  knowledge  of  God  or  of  the  moral  proprieties 
of  life.  It  was  present  as  soon  as  a  soul  knew  good  from 
evil,  and  from  that  moment  it  was  the  law  of  God  himself 
who  had  written  it  in  human  nature.  Life  is  ethical  from 
the  start,  and  the  ethical  authority  within  is  the  authority 
of  God. 

As  to  the  second  of  these  principles:  life  has  a  vindicative 
or  retributory  power,  imparted  to  it  by  the  Creator.  It  is  so 
ordained  that  the  good  and  right  works  to  the  doer’s  advan¬ 
tage,  and  the  wrong  and  evil  to  his  disadvantage — advantage 
in  the  sense  that  corresponds  to  the  meaning  of  moral  govern¬ 
ment.  It  is  not  that  gain  and  loss  in  the  ordinary  human  sense 
are  sure  to  follow  from  doing  well  and  ill,  though  this  some¬ 
times  occurs:  it  is  that  in  the  sense  that  is  suggested  by  the 
meaning  of  moral  government,  good  always  and  everywhere 
brings  forth  good  and  evil  evil,  so  that  man  reaps  as  he  has 
sown.  Retribution  is  twofold  in  its  fruitage,  insuring  har¬ 
vests  from  good  and  evil  seed,  but  it  is  single  in  its  principle, 
and  unvarying  in  its  certainty.  The  harvest  is  not  always 
recognized,  but  it  is  sure.  “Say  ye  to  the  righteous  that  it 
shall  be  well  with  him.  Woe  unto  the  wicked!  it  shall 
be  ill  with  him”  (Is.  iii.  10-11).  That  which  ought  to  be 
shall  be,  in  the  way  of  retribution.  This  is  of  the  very  na¬ 
ture  of  moral  government,  and  this  order  has  been  wrought 
in  by  God  to  the  conditions  of  life. 


182 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Apart  from  religious  doctrine  it  is  often  acknowledged  that 
the  order  of  existence  is  righteous,  educative  and  retributive: 
the  universe,  we  are  told  is  ethical,  and  holds  its  denizens  to 
moral  living,  and  brings  the  consequences.  The  Christian 
doctrine  agrees  to  this,  but  insists  upon  telling  how  it  came 
to  be  so.  It  is  not  content  with  affirming  a  moral  universe: 
it  affirms  a  moral  God  and  governor.  He  who  created  us 
made  our  life  moral,  and  taught  us  of  right  and  wrong  by 
methods  of  his  own;  he  made  his  own  voice  to  sound  within 
us,  and  stands  in  perpetual  communication  with  the  souls 
that  he  has  made;  the  authority  of  duty  is  his  authority, 
and  all  suggestions  of  virtue  are  from  him.  He  is  so 
expressed  in  the  very  structure  and  method  of  life  that 
no  deed  of  good  or  evil  can  fall  outside  the  circle  of  his  gov¬ 
ernment.  . 

We  have  said  that  God’s  moral  government  is  over  all  men, 
at  all  stages  of  their  existence;  but  of  course  this  does  not 
mean  that  it  is  of  equal  significance  to  all.  The  communi¬ 
cating  God  is  in  touch  with  all,  but  in  some  parts  of  humanity 
his  self-communication  has  proceeded  much  farther  than  in 
others.  The  natural  voice  of  God  in  the  soul,  of  which  no 
spiritual  being  is  destitute,  has  been  both  interpreted  and 
supplemented  by  further  expressions  of  his  will.  With  all 
increase  of  knowledge  and  opportunity,  and  all  growth  of 
conscience,  and  all  self-manifestation  of  the  Father,  the  moral 
government  grows  more  full  of  meaning  to  its  subjects.  It 
was  once  an  administration  over  spiritual  children,  mere 
babes  in  life,  but  it  becomes  an  administration  over  spirits 
advancing  toward  maturity,  capable  of  larger  response  to  the 
eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom.  With  such  advance  life 
grows  more  glorious,  and  more  serious.  It  is  a  great  thing 
to  be  in  touch  with  the  communicating  God,  whose  touch 
constitutes  a  moral  government,  and  the  more  he  communi¬ 
cates,  the  greater  a  thing  it  is  to  live  with  him.  In  Christ  he 
speaks  more  richly  than  elsewhere:  in  Christ  therefore  men 
have  to  deal  with  higher  glories  and  greater  responsibilities. 
Moral  government  means  more  to  a  well-enlightened  Chris- 


MORAL  GOVERNOR  183 

k 

tian  than  to  any  one  else.  All  life  is  great,  but  life  here  is 
greatest,  and  its  moral  significance  is  at  the  full. 

It  is  easy  to  see  what  sin  is,  under  such  a  moral  government 
as  this.  For  each  person  the  soul  is  the  real  man,  and  yet 
each  person  has  a  lower  nature,  that  may  prove  to  be  a  sup¬ 
port  to  the  soul  or  a  drag  upon  it.  The  soul  ought  to  grow 
up  to  goodness  and  fellowship  with  God,  which  is  the  normal 
destiny,  and  the  man  ought  to  help  it  grow.  If  the  soul  is 
prevented  from  moving  on  to  this  proper  destiny,  moral  evil 
will  exist.  There  will  be  sin,  which  is  moral  evil  made  one^s 
own,  if  the  man  takes  sides  against  his  soul,  and  chooses  that 
which  will  injure  it  and  keep  it  in  unworthy  life.  For  him 
moral  evil  consists  in  the  depression  of  his  moral  powers  from 
their  primacy,  the  captivating  of  his  higher  nature  by  his 
lower,  and  sin  consists  in  his  own  action  toward  that  end. 
For  the  human  being  contains  in  himself  what  ought  to  be  the 
coming  man  and  the  going  man,  and  he  may  cast  in  his  lot 
with  either;  and  sin  consists  in  blocking  the  progress  of  the 
coming  man  whose  life  is  in  fellowship  with  God,  and  keeping 
in  power  the  man  that  ought  to  go,  whose  affinities  are  down¬ 
ward. 

It  is  easy  also  to  see  how  in  such  a  system  of  life  sin  could 
enter.  The  process  is  illustrated  in  the  career  of  every 
human  individual.  The  child  comes  into  life  unconscious 
of  its  lot,  but  bringing  an  inheritance  from  the  past.  In  its 
inheritance  it  has  lower  passions  and  better  possibilities,  a 
complex  nature  not  well  balanced  and  not  easily  carried  true. 
At  first  the  child  is  blameless  in  giving  freedom  to  inferior 
passions  with  which  it  was  born.  But  there  comes  a  time, 
mysterious  and  fateful,  when  intelligence  and  choice  have 
entered,  and  what  we  call  the  age  of  responsibility  has 
dawned.  That  which  was  innocent  in  infantile  action  is 
sinful  now,  and  there  is  real  virtue  now  in  good  action  that 
once  was  colourless.  Mystery  covers  the  change,  but  the 
fact  is  plain.  It  is  normal  to  leave  behind  the  un worthier 
part  of  one’s  inheritance  and  advance  to  a  better  moral  life; 


184 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


it  is  abnormal  for  the  lower  to  hold  over  and  rule  where  the 
higher  is  due;  and  this  abnormal  is  wrong,  when  once  it  is 
responsibly  chosen.  It  is  sin  to  help  the  inferior  outlive  its 
day  and  retain  a  dominion  which  now  belongs  to  the  better 
part.  At  first  the  sin  may  be  but  slightly  blameworthy,  but 
as  it  becomes  a  more  characteristic  thing  it  grows  more  guilty. 
It  may  even  come  to  pass  that  the  whole  man  is  given  over  to 
the  sinful  choice  and  practice  whereby  his  best  is  subjected  to 
his  worst,  and  his  high  spiritual  possibilities  are  wrecked. 

The  race  is  like  the  individual,  for  this,  too,  began  with  an 
inheritance  from  lower  life,  while  higher  powers  were  dawn¬ 
ing  within  it.  Within  the  animal  the  godlike  grew,  and  is 
growing  still.  Man  with  these  double  powers  was  still  a 
unit,  able  to  throw  the  weight  of  his  choice  and  effort  toward 
either  side.  As  the  soul  in  the  race  grew  up,  what  was  once 
innocent  became  abnormal  and  wrong,  and  the  prevailing 
choice  of  mankind  did  not  repel  the  evil  but  encouraged  it. 
Humanity  has  often  helped  its  own  rising  soul,  and  is  partly 
arrayed  in  its  favour,  but  it  has  terribly  beaten  its  own  soul 
down  beneath  unworthy  choices,  and  kept  alive  and  strong 
its  own  inferior  part.  This  is  moral  evil  on  a  race-wide 
scale,  and  on  the  part  of  intelligent  actors  in  such  choice  and 
working  this  is  sin.  This  does  not  mean  that  sin  consists 
altogether  in  animal  passions,  in  lust  and  beastliness  and 
the  dominion  of  the  body.  These  things  have  indeed  sur¬ 
vived  in  excess,  and  done  immeasurable  harm  to  the  humanity 
that  ought  long  ago  to  have  become  superior  to  them.  But 
there  is  more  than  this.  Since  the  soul  came,  the  old  passion 
of  self-will,  developed  and  strengthened  by  the  long  struggle 
for  existence,  is  not  the  normal  guide  and  governor.  The 
souks  crown  of  glory  is  unselfishness  and  love  and  helpfulness, 
and  by  these  life  ought  to  be  inspired.  A  race  that  refuses 
these  higher  gifts  and  clings  to  the  self-willed  and  selfish 
life  is  a  sinful  race.  It  is  bound  to  be  increasingly  sinful,  for 
self-will,  taking  hold  upon  the  higher  powers,  can  work  such 
havoc  as  life  upon  the  lower  plane  could  never  suffer,  corrupt¬ 
ing  the  noblest  possibilities  and  spoiling  the  coming  man. 


MORAL  GOVERNOR 


185 


In  view  of  the  long  history,  there  is  no  need  to  show  what 
harm  selfish  passion  must  do  in  the  social  life  of  the  race. 
Selfishness  is  against  nature  for  the  soul,  hurtful  to  the 
neighbour,  destructive  of  the  social  order,  and  thus  repugnant 
against  all  forms  of  duty  and  welfare.  When  selfishness 
enters,  sin  enters,  and  enters  to  remain. 

What  has  now  been  given  is  purely  a  natural  account  of 
sin.  If  a  natural  account  of  sin  cannot  be  given,  no  explana¬ 
tion  or  doctrine  of  it  can  be  satisfactory;  and  so  we  may  well 
welcome  a  reasonable  representation  of  the  natural  possi¬ 
bility.  But  the  Christian  doctrine  adds  that  all  sin  is  sin 
against  God.  Christians  have  sometimes  said  that  all  sin 
is  against  God  alone,  but  that  is  untenable;  sins  against  men 
are  among  the  most  familiar  things  in  the  world.  But  in  the 
Christian  light  it  appears  that  all  wrong  deeds  are  done  within 
a  personal  relation  to  God  in  which  all  other  relations  are 
included.  As  God  is  over  all,  so  all  is  under  God.  There  is 
no  action  that  is  not  included  under  the  relation  of  men  to 
him.  Out  of  his  nature  came  the  law  written  in  ours,  that 
the  soul,  capable  of  godlikeness,  must  be  the  supreme  end  in 
life.  Any  life  in  which  the  normal  balance  is  inverted  is 
condemned  by  God.  ^‘The  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin’^  is 
apparent  by  the  light  of  nature,  but  is  glaringly  plain  in  view 
of  God.  Eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom  desires  the 
good  of  all  beings,  and  has  appointed  for  their  life  a  moral 
order  and  quality  through  which  alone  their  good  can  be 
obtained.  Offence  against  that  order  and  quality  is  sin 
against  him.  It  is  thus  intelligible  that  all  sin  falls  under  his 
moral  government.  Whatever  holds  the  soul  down  from  its 
normal  ascent  to  godlikeness  is  resisting  and  defying  God,  and 
he  knows  it,  and  is  against  it  forever. 

We  cannot  but  wonder  that  there  should  be  sin  in  the  world 
of  such  a  God.  We  can  trace  the  way  by  which  it  entered, 
but  the  wonder  is  that  the  door  was  open.  We  may  never  be 
able  to  solve  the  problem,  and  certainly  we  should  never  talk 
as  if  we  were  easy  masters  of  it,  or  it  were  a  simple  matter. 
All  our  thinking  about  God  goes  on  in  a  world  which  this 


186 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


mystery  overhangs.  Our  task  is,  not  to  clear  the  sky,  but  to 
obtain  the  clearest  vision  that  we  can  beneath  a  sky  thus 
clouded.  Our  Christian  doctrine  proclaims  a  God  of  perfect 
goodness,  ruling  in  a  world  in  which  sin  is  present.  That 
sin  is  abnormal  in  the  world  where  the  soul  lives  is  just  as 
evident  as  that  sin  is  abnormal  in  the  world  of  God.  The 
existing  world  is  the  world  both  of  God  and  of  the  soul,  and 
'  in  such  a  realm  of  life  moral  government  must  deal  with  sin 
as  with  an  abnormal  fact. 

The  feeling  of  God  against  sin  is  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures 
as  his  wrath,  or  anger.  Of  course  we  do  not  understand  this 
to  be  a  rage,  but  a  holy  passion;  and  we  cannot  fail  to  judge 
that  a  holy  passion  against  sin  is  quite  worthy  of  God, 
and  even  a  necessary  expression  of  his  character.  If  we  had 
reason  to  believe  that  God  was  cool  and  comfortable  about  the 
evil  that  is  defying  his  will  and  devouring  his  children,  we 
should  cease  to  call  him  Father.  We  do  him  no  wrong  when 
we  attribute  to  him  a  holy  passion  against  sin,  but  rather 
praise  him  for  feeling  as  he  ought.  Yet  his  anger,  we  should 
remember,  is  not  directed  against  persons,  except  just  so  far 
as  they  are  positively  identified  with  the  evil  that  he  hates; and 
even  so,  his  anger  at  a  person,  whom  by  his  nature  he  loves, 
is  different  from  his  anger  at  an  evil  quality,  which  by  his  na¬ 
ture  he  hates.  In  either  case  this  anger  is  not  of  such  character 
as  to  need  appeasement,  or  to  be  capable  of  it.  As  a  holy  pas¬ 
sion  against  evil  it  cannot  be  appeased,  even  as  it  ought  not;  and 
when  it  glows  against  persons,  it  only  needs  that  the  occasion 
for  it  be  removed,  in  order  to  cease  by  its  own  worthy  nature. 

If  we  inquire  as  to  the  traits  of  divine  character  that  are 
expressed  in  God’s  moral  government,  we  shall  find  his 
government  like  himself.  When  we  say  that  God  adminis¬ 
ters  the  moral  life  of  men,  his  name  bears  its  full  meaning,  too 
rich  for  words.  But  in  considering  this  government  over 
persons  we  are  reminded  especially  of  the  Righteousness  of 
God,  which  the  Christian  doctrine  has  always  recognized  as 
dominant  here. 


MORAL  GOVERNOR 


187 


Righteousness  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  some¬ 
thing  existent  in  God  himself,  apart  from  what  he  has  to  do 
with  other  beings.  In  one  sense,  so  it  is.  The  character 
that  makes  him  righteous  is  an  independent  and  eternal 
character;  but  righteousness  itself  is  a  matter  of  relations, 
not  an  abstract  quality.  One  person  cannot  be  righteous 
alone,  though  he  may  be  such  a  person  that  he  is  sure  to  be 
righteous  as  soon  as  he  has  to  do  with  another.  The  right¬ 
eousness  of  God  is  his  moral  reliability.  It  is  his  trust¬ 
worthiness  in  the  field  of  moral  action.  Or,  in  a  word,  the 
name  covers  all  that  is  meant  by  the  large  truth  that  God  is 
the  eternal  Right.  We  adore  him  as  the  eternal  Life,  and 
as  the  eternal  Love,  but  as  the  eternal  Right  he  is  equally 
glorious  and  adorable.  In  him  all  right  is  grounded,  and 
from  him  the  force  of  it  has  come  forth  to  us  men.  What  we 
name  his  righteousness  is  the  attitude  and  work  of  God  as  the 
eternal  Right,  in  his  relations  with  other  beings. 

We  need  to  make  full  recognition  of  the  fact  that  righteous¬ 
ness  is  a  matter  of  relations,  and  of  relations  between  persons. 
We  often  speak  of  the  righteousness  of  God  as  dealing  with 
sin;  but  we  should  do  better  justice  if  we  thought  of  it  as 
dealing  with  sinners.  This  change  in  point  of  view  is  almost 
indispensable  if  righteousness  is  to  be  correctly  understood. 
It  is  with  good  and  evil  men,  and  men  of  mingled  good  and 
evil,  that  righteousness  deals  in  moral  government.  Moral 
quality,  good  and  evil,  stands  before  God  to  be  estimated,  but 
the  righteousness  of  God  does  its  work  in  his  dealings  with  the 
persons  who  have  good  and  evil  in  them,  and  are  responsible 
in  all  degrees  for  their  acts  and  character.  God  the  eternal 
right  has  created  persons,  has  constituted  the  conditions  of 
their  life,  is  exercising  moral  government  over  them,  and  is 
sure  to  deal  with  them  in  perfect  rightness,  according  to  what 
they  are,  and  do  toward  them  what  ought  to  be  done  by  him : 
this  is  the  meaning  of  his  righteousness. 

It  is  in  this  light  that  we  should  view  the  retributive 
aspects  of  righteousness.  The  familiar  association  between 
righteousness  and  retribution  is  a  sound  one,  but  it  is  both 


188 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


sound  and  clear  only  when  righteousness  is  interpreted  in  the 
personal  manner.  Retribution  is  an  element  in  God^s  moral 
government,  because  it  is  right :  that  is,  it  is  right  that  corre¬ 
sponding  consequences  to  the  doer  should  follow  the  doing 
of  right  and  wrong.  The  reliability  of  God  stands  fast  for 
every  soul  that  loves  and  seeks  the  better  part,  and  for  every 
soul  that  does  evil.  We  are  accustomed  to  say  that  right¬ 
eousness  ensures  the  punishment  of  sin;  but  we  should  be 
nearer  the  truth  if  we  said  that  it  ensures  the  punishment  of 
sinful  persons,  in  the  precise  proportion  in  which  they 
ought  to  receive  it;  and  by  the  same  definition  we  should 
cover  the  certainty  that  due  return  of  good  will  come  to  the 
soul  that  has  done  the  good.  Righteousness  moves  between 
God  and  men,  and  it  is  upon  men  that  its  necessary  punitive 
and  beneficent  work  is  wrought.  The  work  is  wrought 
because  it  ought  to  be.  The  righteous  retributive  law  is  to  be 
trusted,  and  no  one  may  either  hope  or  fear  that  the  righteous¬ 
ness  of  God  will  fail. 

Righteousness  in  God  is  often  defined  almost  as  if  retribu¬ 
tion  were  its  only  work,  and  that  too  with  the  punitive  aspect 
at  the  front.  But  when  we  identify  it  with  the  idea  of  God  as 
the  eternal  right,  all  such  defining  appears  far  too  narrow. 
Prominent  in  the  necessary  meaning  of  the  eternal  right  is 
perfect  fairness.  Righteousness  is  fairness,  and  God  is 
righteous.  In  his  government  of  men  he  is  absolutely  faithful 
to  all  demands  of  fair  dealing.  In  his  judgment  he  never 
exacts  too  little,  and  he  never  expects  too  much.  Not  more 
than  it  is  fair  to  ask  does  he  demand  of  any  one,  and  not  less 
than  is  right  does  he  require.  He  makes  all  fair  allowance 
for  human  weakness  and  ignorance,  and  for  all  circumstances 
that  have  reasonable  claim  to  be  considered  in  the  judgment 
that  should  be  passed  upon  a  man.  He  estimates  men  and 
all  their  works  in  perfect  justice,  in  view  of  all  that  ought  to 
be  taken  into  the  account.  ‘‘The  judgment  of  God  is  accord¬ 
ing  to  truth’’  (Rom.  ii.  2),  without  fictitious  demands,  without 
unreal  standards,  without  overlooking  of  anything  that  be¬ 
longs  to  the  case. 


MORAL  GOVERNOR 


189 


There  are  some  views  of  God  in  his  relation  to  men  that 
vanish  away  when  this  vision  of  righteousness  is  seen.  Some¬ 
times  it  is  said  that  God  requires  perfect  obedience  from 
every  soul  and  requires  it  now,  and  holds  all  men  condemned 
because  they  lack  it — and  this  because  he  is  a  righteous  God. 
Sometimes  it  is  held  that  righteousness  compels  God^s  judg¬ 
ment  upon  men  to  proceed  in  absolute  strictness,  knowing  no 
such  thing  as  allowance  for  human  weakness :  allowance,  it  is 
thought,  may  perhaps  be  made  by  mercy,  but  is  impossible 
to  righteousness — and  so  the  attributes  are  in  conflict. 
Sometimes  it  is  represented  that  in  the  sight  of  righteous¬ 
ness  every  sin  against  God  is  an  infinite  sin  deserving  infinite 
punishment,  because  God  himself  is  infinite.  Sometimes  it 
is  argued  that  because  God  is  righteous  all  sin  must  be  pun¬ 
ished,  even  though  the  sinner  be  forgiven.  But  all  these 
views  rest  upon  conceptions  of  righteousness  that  Christ 
never  taught  us  or  could  teach.  The  righteous  God  judges  by 
the  standards  that  are  applicable  to  the  case  in  hand,  and  by 
no  others.  He  insists  upon  all  that  may  fairly  be  expected,  but 
upon  nothing  more.  He  makes  all  just  allowance  for  igno¬ 
rance  and  moral  feebleness — and  even  our  common  speech 
bears  witness  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  just  allowance.  He 
knows  things  by  their  right  names,  and  passes  no  arbitrary 
judgments.  Just  for  the  reason  that  his  justice  is  thus  fair 
to  human  weakness,  is  his  claim  for  all  attainable  good  the 
more  incontestable  and  his  punishment  the  more  to  be  ap¬ 
proved.  Righteousness  includes  magnanimity,  for  mag¬ 
nanimity  is  right  and  its  opposite  is  wrong;  and  God  is  the 
most  magnanimous  of  beings.  The  largest  and  most  gener¬ 
ous  ideals  of  fair  dealing  that  have  grown  up  among  men  are 
most  like  him.  All  the  more  impressive  and  searching 
therefore  is  his  insistence  upon  the  right  and  good,  and  all  the 
more  solemn  is  the  fact  of  his  moral  government. 

Far  back  of  the  working  operation  of  moral  government 
does  the  relation  of  righteousness  to  moral  government 
appear.  It  is  involved  in  the  very  constitution  of  the  order 


190 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


in  which  spirits  have  their  life.  It  implies  the  creation  of  an 
order  in  which  a  fair  and  wholesome  moral  government  can 
be  conducted.  Righteousness  in  God  implies  the  ordaining 
of  a  natural  healthfulness  in  the  order  of  human  life.  An 
order  in  which  sin  could  exist  might  be  quite  defensible,  but 
an  order  in  which  sin  was  unwarned  and  unreproved  could 
not.  A  world  in  which  men  must  necessarily  descend  in  the 
moral  scale  but  could  never  rise  could  not  be  defended  as  the 
world  of  a  righteous  God.  The  righteousness  of  our  God 
and  Father  is  vindicated  by  what  he  has  done.  The  healthful 
element,  or  element  of  moral  hygiene,  in  the  order  of  our 
world,  is  evident  as  soon  as  we  look  with  discerning  eyes. 
It  has  been  overlooked,  and  sometimes  denied,  because 
Christians  have  often  interpreted  the  world  so  much  more  in 
the  light  of  sin  than  of  God.  The  moral  healthfulness  of 
much  that  enters  into  human  life  ought  never  to  have  been 
unnoticed.  That  life  throughout  the  broad  world  has 
brought  forth  all  the  virtues  of  the  present  day  as  well  as  all 
the  vices,  is  a  sure  sign  of  an  indwelling  wholesomeness,  not 
altogether  overcome  by  evil.  Life  is  properly  a  school  of 
love  and  helpfulness,  and  its  work  has  not  been  wholly 
thwarted.  Life  is  educative:  both  joy  and  sorrow  are  teachers, 
and  suffering  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  schoolmasters.  Pun¬ 
ishment  is  disciplinary:  suffering  earned  by  sin  has  been  a 
strong  means  of  winning  men  away  from  sin — a  means  only 
partially  successful,  as  we  know,  yet  one  that  bears  witness 
to  the  wisdom  and  righteousness  of  him  who  implanted  it  in 
life.  The  common  experience  of  the  race  through  long  ages 
has  developed  the  soul  up  to  its  present  standing  and  ability. 
Through  that  experience  God  has  gotten  as  good  a  world  as 
he  now  has;  and  all  our  knowledge  of  the  dreadfulness  of  sin 
must  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  the  state  of  mankind  still 
bears  witness  to  a  fine  wholesomeness  in  the  conditions  of  its 
existence.  All  this  illustrates  the  righteousness  of  God;  for 
a  God  who  was  to  conduct  a  moral  administration  over  men 
could  righteously  place  them  only  where  a  moral  administra¬ 
tion  was  possible  on  terms  that  were  fair  to  them. 


MORAL  GOVERNOR 


191 


In  the  same  direction  the  Christian  idea  of  righteousness 
leads  us  another  step.  If  a  race  in  ignorance  and  moral 
weakness  has  fallen  into  sin,  ever  so  guiltily,  and  a  faithful 
Creator  is  its  moral  governor,  it  is  safe  to  be  sure  that  divine 
help  against  the  evil  will  be  forthcoming.  Righteousness 
will  suggest  it,  as  well  as  love.  God’s  moral  government  is 
an  administration  opposed  to  sin:  but  an  administration 
opposed  to  sin  in  its  work  upon  spiritual  beings  will  not 
leave  sin  unopposed  in  the  field  of  their  life.  That  would 
not  be  right;  and  the  honourable  plea  recorded  in  the  prayer 
of  Abraham,  ‘‘Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?” 
(Gen.  xviii.  25),  may  be  just  as  fitly  offered  here.  A  right  moral 
government  must  contain  not  only  an  element  of  healthfulness 
in  its  natural  order,  but  if  there  is  need  of  it,  an  element  of 
salvation.  It  is  right  for  the  strong  to  help  the  weak,  and  for 
the  faithful  Creator  to  deliver  his  creatures  from  evil.  We 
wrong  God’s  righteousness  if  we  think  of  it  as  only  condemna¬ 
tory  and  punitive.  Even  before  Christ,  the  Old  Testament 
includes  his  graciousness  within  it.  That  God  is  a  Saviour 
in  spite  of  his  righteousness  is  what  Christians  have  often  said, 
but  that  God  is  a  Saviour  because  of  his  righteousness,  as  well 
as  because  of  his  love,  is  what  prophets  and  apostles  have 
declared.  In  the  Scriptures  it  appears,  just  as  our  best 
thought  of  him  would  expect,  that  his  own  righteousness  im¬ 
pels  him  to  establish  righteousness  in  the  world  where  it  is 
lacking,  and  that  he  is  faithful  and  righteous  to  pardon  and 
purify  sinful  men  when  they  confess  their  sins  (1  Jn.  i.  9).  All 
this  is  as  it  should  be,  for  it  is  right  that  God  should  be  a 
Saviour,  and  a  world  in  which  sin  was  left  unopposed  in 
possession  of  the  field  could  not  be  defended  as  the  world  of 
a  righteous  God.  Of  him  as  Saviour  we  must  speak  else¬ 
where:  here  it  is  sufficient  to  note  that  salvation,  or  deliver¬ 
ance  of  men  from  sin,  is  a  true  part  of  the  moral  adminis¬ 
tration  of  human  life  by  God. 

In  these  statements  it  has  been  implied  that  the  intent  of 
God’s  moral  government  is  gracious  toward  men,  and  he 
is  administering  their  life  for  their  good.  This  has  always 


192 


THE  CHKISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


been  held  in  the  Christian  doctrine,  though  not  always  with 
full  consistency.  That  the  moral  administration  of  life  was 
gracious  toward  some  of  the  living  has  never  been  doubted 
by  Christians,  and  it  has  often  been  felt  that  in  some  manner 
the  government  of  God  must  be  gracious  toward  all  men; 
but  very  rarely  has  the  idea  of  a  universal  kind  intent  been 
clearly  and  rationally  fitted  into  a  place  among  the  thoughts 
of  the  Christian  people.  Often  it  has  been  held  that  gracious¬ 
ness  in  God  is  a  matter  of  decree  or  determination  rather  than 
of  nature;  and  from  that  starting-point  it  is  impossible  to 
reach  the  vision  of  a  gracious  moral  government  over  all. 
Often  it  has  been  held  that  the  gracious  intent  of  moral  govern¬ 
ment  was  manifest  in  the  historical  Christ  alone,  from  which 
it  was  inferred  that  God  was  nothing  but  a  Judge  to  those 
who  had  never  heard  of  Christ.  But  the  moral  government 
of  which  we  are  speaking  is  the  administration  of  the  life  of  all 
mankind.  We  have  to  think  of  the  good  God  whom  Christ 
has  made  known  to  us,  and  to  judge  of  his  attitude  toward  all 
his  human  creatures.  Of  course  it  is  impossible  for  that  God 
to  be  governing  men  otherwise  than  for  their  good.  Under 
the  Father  of  Jesus  human  life  has  been  lived  from  the 
beginning  and  will  be  lived  forever.  The  Christian  doctrine 
is  that  his  moral  government  of  all  men  is  meant  in  kindness 
and  adapted  to  their  welfare.  His  gift  of  life  to  the  race  is  a 
blessing,  not  a  curse,  and  his  governance  of  men  is  his  means 
of  fulfilling  his  gracious  creative  purpose. 

5.  PROVIDENCE 

Equally  with  Sovereignty  and  Moral  Government,  Provi¬ 
dence  is  a  part  of  the  relation  between  God  and  men.  Doubt¬ 
less  the  doctrine  of  providence  includes  the  idea  of  control 
and  direction  over  natural  forces,  as  we  call  them,  and  the 
turning  of  non-spiritual  things  to  spiritual  use;  but  God’s 
administration  would  not  be  called  providence,  or  considered 
in  theology,  if  spiritual  beings  were  not  influenced  by  its 
operation.  The  significance  of  providence  resides  in  God’s 


PROVIDENCE 


193 


relation  not  to  things  but  to  persons.  The  moon  can  serve 
providence  only  by  serving  life.  Discernible  in  human  life 
there  is  a  natural  order,  and  there  is  a  spiritual  order;  or 
in  other  words  there  is  a  spiritual  meaning  and  purpose 
that  cannot  be  sufficiently  set  forth  in  terms  of  the  natural 
order.  The  doctrine  of  providence  is  the  affirmation  of  that 
spiritual  significance  in  the  world,  and  of  God’s  directing 
will  and  wisdom  in  giving  it  effect. 

Such  a  doctrine  lies  closely  side  by  side  with  the  doctrine  of 
moral  government,  and  perhaps  might  well  be  treated  as  a 
part  of  it.  Yet  the  two  are  not  the  same.  We  think  of  God 
in  moral  government  as  having  to  do  with  the  souls  of  men, 
with  reference  to  their  character,  their  responsibility  and  their 
destiny;  while  in  providence  we  think  of  his  purpose  concern¬ 
ing  men,  and  the  events  and  occurrences  through  which 
his  purpose  is  to  be  wrought  out.  Roughly,  one  may  be 
called  the  administration  of  human  character  and  destiny, 
and  the  other  the  administration  of  human  affairs.  Provi¬ 
dence  may  be  defined  as  that  comprehensive  care  by  which 
God  brings  all  things  into  the  service  of  his  spiritual  purpose. 

The  idea  of  providence  is  no  specialty  of  Christian  faith, 
for  some  such  doctrine  has  been  held  wherever  there  was 
belief  in  God,  or  in  gods.  No  people  have  ever  believed  in 
the  divine  without  having  some  belief  in  a  divine  administra¬ 
tion  of  human  affairs.  The  belief  has  necessarily  varied  in 
character,  according  to  the  conceptions  that  were  held  of 
God.  Polytheism  implies  a  miscellaneous  and  contradictory 
kind  of  providence:  only  monotheism  has  place  for  a  broad 
and  consistent  doctrine.  Even  under  monotheism  there  is 
room  for  large  variation  in  the  idea,  for  the  sole  God  may  be 
conceived  in  various  relations  to  men  and  their  affairs.  A 
history  of  Christian  conceptions  of  providence,  if  it  could  be 
written  in  full,  would  be  a  strangely  mixed  record  of  human 
faith  and  feebleness,  of  the  noblest  thoughts  and  the  crudest 
mis  judgments.  But  the  Christian  faith  in  providence  has 
always  been  a  living  thing,  and  in  all  ages  has  been  the  key- 


194 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


note  of  confidence  and  hope.  Providence,  indeed,  is  more  a 
theme  of  faith  than  of  doctrine,  and  the  faith  may  be  much 
clearer  than  the  doctrine.  Faith  in  God  does  much  of  its 
beneficent  work  by  being  faith  in  the  providence  of  God. 

The  abiding  element  in  the  Christian  faith  in  providence 
is  the  confidence  that  God  cares  for  men,  and  is  administering 
the  events  of  time  and  the  affairs  of  the  world  for  their  good. 
Two  classical  expressions  give  the  central  idea  in  its  perma¬ 
nent  forms.  One  relates  to  the  more  special  field  of  respon¬ 
sive  spiritual  life — “We  know  that  all  things  work  together 
for  good  to  them  that  love  God  ’’  (Rom.  viii.  28) :  the  other  to 
the  entire  order  in  which  men  live — “Of  him,  and  through 
him,  and  unto  him,  are  all  things’^  (Rom.  xi.  36).  This  one 
theme  of  confidence  in  God’s  effective  gracious  purpose  has 
run  through  the  whole  song  of  Christian  faith.  Evidently  it 
is  a  theme  capable  of  innumerable  variations,  and  almost  all 
possible  variations  it  has  received.  But  the  main  variations 
result  from  difference  regarding  one  point  in  the  relation  of 
God  to  the  world  in  which  his  providence  is  observed. 

It  is  evident  that  the  idea  of  providence  must  vary  with 
the  idea  that  is  entertained  of  the  manner  in  which  God  is 
related  to  the  world.  It  will  be  one  thing  if  he  is  regarded 
chiefly  as  above  and  beyond  the  world  and  acting  upon  it  from 
without,  and  another  if  he  is  thought  of  as  indwelling  in  the 
world  and  acting  through  its  operations.  This  difference, 
which  will  often  meet  us  in  our  study,  is  a  deep  and  influential 
one,  and  the  doctrine  of  providence  lies  directly  in  the  field  of 
its  influence.  It  is  an  ancient  difference,  too,  for  both  ideas  of 
God  have  run  through  all  religious  thinking,  from  days  far 
back  of  the  Christian  era,  and  have  largely  controlled  the 
conception  of  his  providential  work. 

We  must  speak  hereafter  of  the  Transcendence  and  Imma¬ 
nence  of  God.  At  present  it  must  suffice  to  note  that  it  has 
been  natural  for  men  to  think  of  God  as  outside  the  world 
and  acting  upon  it  mainly  from  without.  We  ourselves  act 
upon  things  about  us,  and  not  from  within  the  things,  and 
when  God  is  conceived  as  inffuencing  visible  affairs  it  is  easy 


PROVIDENCE 


195 


to  picture  divine  action  after  the  likeness  of  human  in  this 
respect.  Human  institutions  foster  the  same  tendency,  for 
God  is  represented  as  a  king,  and  human  kingship  has  been 
suggestive  of  a  dignity  that  shows  itself  in  aloofness.  When 
God  is  conceived  as  holy,  this  world  may  seem  unworthy  of 
his  presence,  and  he  may  be  placed  above  it,  in  some  higher 
and  purer  realm.  The  stronger  the  sense  of  sin  becomes,  the 
more  does  this  world  seem  no  place  for  his  abode.  But 
such  separation  brings  great  consequences.  When  God  and 
the  world  are  thus  set  apart  from  each  other,  it  follows  that 
the  order  of  the  world  and  the  action  of  God  seem  to  be  two 
things.  The  course  of  the  world  will  be  under  his  governance, 
of  course,  since  he  is  God,  but  his  most  characteristic  opera¬ 
tion  is  not  in  the  natural  order,  it  is  in  action  of  another  class, 
which  becomes  known  as  the  supernatural.  His  favourite 
work  is  not  only  superior  to  nature,  but  distinct  and  different 
from  it,  and  breaks  through  nature  when  it  comes.  When  he 
appears  most  like  himself,  the  ordinary  course  of  the  world 
gives  way  for  his  entrance.  ‘^He  bowed  the  heavens  and 
came  down (2  Sam.  xxii.  10). 

With  God  thus  conceived  as  outside  the  world,  the  doctrine 
of  providence  becomes  a  doctrine  of  divine  interposition  and 
interference.  Special  action  of  God  strikes  through  the  order 
of  nature,  and  providence  is  a  divine  practice  of  intervening 
in  human  affairs.  This  is  an  ancient  doctrine,  and  it  is  no 
wonder  that  it  persistently  holds  a  place  in  religion.  Rever¬ 
ence  loves  to  think  that  God  is  highly  exalted,  and  yet  is  at 
hand  concretely  and  livingly,  ready  to  strike  in  at  any  moment 
for  protection  of  precious  interests  and  promotion  of  his  own 
will.  With  such  a  view  of  providence,  intervention  may  be 
expected  at  any  hour  in  behalf  of  those  for  whom  he  cares,  or 
against  his  enemies,  and  any  event  that  seems  specially 
significant  may  readily  be  attributed  to  such  an  intervention. 
Such  doctrine  of  providence  is  a  doctrine  of  divine  occasional¬ 
ism  rather  than  of  steady  divine  operation,  but  the  occasions 
are  ever  arising,  and  God  is  at  hand.  Faith  beholds  him 
ever  ready,  and  believing  souls  look  with  a  most  helpful  con- 


196 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


fidence  upon  the  Friend  who  will  never  leave  them  nor  for¬ 
sake  them  or  neglect  the  interests  of  his  own  kingdom. 
Thus  the  doctrine  is  a  strong  support  amid  the  perplexities 
of  life.  It  is  liable  to  abuse,  as  the  history  of  fanatical  faith 
illustrates  a  thousand  times,  but  it  is  a  doctrine  of  great  prac¬ 
tical  power. 

Through  the  greater  part  of  Christian  time  God  has  been 
regarded  mainly  as  above  the  world  and  operating  upon  it 
from  without  by  supernatural  action.  He  is  still  so  regarded 
by  most  Christians,  though  by  none  with  full  consistency. 
That  mode  of  thought  is  one  of  the  common  inheritances 
from  ancient  human  life.  In  Christian  life  it  has  been 
supported  by  the  Old  Testament,  where  God  was  sometimes 
pictured  as  sitting  in  the  heavens,  looking  down  upon  the 
earth,  descending  upon  the  clouds  to  intervene  in  the  affairs 
of  men,  manifesting  himself  in  events  that  have  no  place  in 
nature.  It  is  true  that  he  appears  also  as  nearer  to  men 
than  this,  and  the  more  abiding  relation  is  identical  with  the 
one  that  Jesus  dwelt  upon;  but  the  more  external  picture 
took  strong  hold  upon  popular  faith,  and  came  over  into  the 
popular  Christianity.  There  it  has  remained.  The  doctrine 
of  providence  has  accordingly  been  very  largely  a  doctrine  of 
supernatural  interventions.  Special  events  have  been  singled 
out  and  called  providential:  Christians  have  often  talked  of 
providences :  the  God  of  providence  has  been  the  intervening 
and  often  the  overruling  God,  who  accomplishes  by  interposi¬ 
tion  what  was  otherwise  impossible.  The  providential  pur¬ 
pose,  being  the  will  of  God,  has  been  accounted  to  be  con¬ 
tinuous,  not  fragmentary;  and  yet  God’s  providential  work 
has  been  identified  very  largely  with  what  is  special  and 
occasional. 

A  providence  of  interventions  is  naturally  understood  to  be 
intended  for  reward  and  punishment,  and  for  vindication  of 
God.  It  has  constantly  been  held  that  providence  was  pro¬ 
tective  of  the  good  and  destructive  of  the  wicked.  In  Old 
Testament  times,  when  the  future  life  was  in  the  background, 
faith  in  God  took  the  form  of  confidence  that  the  present  life 


PROVIDENCE 


197 


would  witness  the  full  manifestation  of  his  justice;  wherefore 
it  was  expected  that  very  soon  the  wicked  would  receive  their 
punishment  and  the  righteous  their  vindication  and  reward. 
So  some  of  the  Psalms  most  earnestly  predict,  counting  upon 
a  providence  that  will  immediately  illustrate  God’s  righteous¬ 
ness.  This  idea  oPGod’s  way  with  men  has  never  died,  and 
still  quotes  the  authority  of  the  Psalms  in  its  favour.  Provi¬ 
dence  has  been  looked  to  to  punish  sin,  or  at  least  to  expose 
the  sinner,  and  to  treat  the  good  as  they  deserve.  It  has  been 
confidently  relied  upon  to  annihilate  danger  for  the  good  and 
protect  them  from  physical  injury,  while  the  occurrence  of 
harm  to  the  wicked  was  called  the  punitive  work  of  God, 
supernaturally  wrought  in  the  midst  of  a  natural  order  that 
was  leaving  sin  unpunished.  So,  as  by  the  friends  of  Job, 
calamity  has  been  interpreted  as  proof  of  guilt,  and  prosperity 
as  a  sign  of  divine  approval,  to  the  very  sad  disordering  of 
ethical  convictions.  A  similar  view  has  been  taken  of  the 
important  historical  crises  in  which  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
the  cause  of  righteousness  have  been  furthered.  Solemn 
indeed  are  these  crises,  and  impressive  to  every  soul  that  dis¬ 
tinguishes  good  and  evil.  With  reverence  men  gaze  upon 
them,  especially  when  they  are  far  enough  away  for  their 
significance  and  effect  to  be  appreciated.  Surely,  men  say,  this 
is  our  God :  it  must  be  he,  because  he  comes  in  so  marvellous 
a  manner. 

These  forms  of  doctrine  concerning  providence  are  sincere 
and  reverent  endeavours  to  interpret  life  as  under  a  providence 
of  interventions,  but  they  do  not  satisfy  the  hope  that  has 
been  built  upon  them.  It  does  not  prove  to  be  true  that  oc¬ 
currences  can  be  relied  upon  to  accord  with  the  character 
of  those  whom  they  affect.  Taking  the  world  through,  one 
man  is  not  safer  than  another  from  lightning  or  disease,  except 
as  intelligent  precaution  renders  him  so.  Both  the  equalities 
and  the  inequalities  of  life  refuse  to  be  classified  in  terms  of 
moral  character.  Many  a  heart  has  been  well-nigh  broken 
in  coming  to  the  point  of  making  the  acknowledgment,  but  at 
last  it  has  to  be  acknowledged  that  the  doctrine  of  a  protective 


198 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  punitive  providence  does  not  correspond  to  the  facts  of 
life.  Nothing  but  the  most  flagrant  injustice  is  the  result  if 
we  attempt  to  explain  the  misfortunes  of  life  as  punitive. 
The  theory  does  not  work.  Virtue  is  no  safeguard  against 
sickness,  fire  and  flood,  or  many  another  form  of  trouble, 
nor  does  wickedness  bring  them  on.  If  we  have  found  a  case 
that  seems  perfectly  to  prove  the  doctrine,  the  next  hour  may 
bring  us  one  that  just  as  clearly  disproves  it.  Nor  do  the 
crises  in  history  prove  on  the  whole  convincing.  Sometimes 
a  crisis  sets  the  human  movement  forward,  but  sometimes 
another  sets  it  back.  The  oft-quoted  destruction  of  the 
Spanish  Armada  through  a  combination  of  storm  and  human 
folly  promoted  human  progress,  by  preserving  from  inter¬ 
ference  the  quality  by  virtue  of  which  England  has  been 
useful  to  later  time.  The  murder  of  Abraham  Lincoln  set 
human  progress  back,  by  throwing  a  task  of  vast  importance 
into  hands  less  wise  and  competent.  Thus  to  define  provi¬ 
dence  in  terms  of  divine  intervention  is  to  involve  ourselves 
in  deep  perplexity.  If  some  have  found  it  heart-breaking  to 
abandon  such  a  view  of  life,  more  will  find  it  heart-breaking 
to  cling  to  it  and  meet  the  consequences  to  their  faith. 

So  it  is  with  all  doctrines  that  assume  a  God  mainly  outside 
the  world,  affecting  it  by  interposition.  They  have  awakened 
faith,  and  brought  God  near  to  the  heart  at  critical  moments, 
and  sustained  reverence  and  gratitude;  but  they  have  failed 
to  give  a  permanently  satisfying  account  of  life,  and  are  cer¬ 
tain  to  bring  a  sad  sense  of  their  insufficiency.  They  have 
served  a  useful  purpose  in  the  time  when  they  could  be  calmly 
held,  but  they  must  yield  when  their  day  is  past.  It  is  often 
feared  that  the  sense  of  a  living  providence  must  depart 
when  this  view  of  God  gives  place  to  another.  Parodoxically, 
and  pathetically,  Christians  often  seem  afraid  that  the  doctrine 
which  really  brings  God  nearest  will  destroy  the  vivid  and 
trustful  recognition  of  his  presence.  But  we  may  hope  that, 
on  the  contrary,  the  change  will  introduce  a  doctrine  that  will 
better  stand  the  test  of  life. 

Our  understanding  of  providence  will  undergo  an  intelligi- 


PROVIDENCE 


199 


ble  change  if  we  thin^^f  God  as  nearer  to  his  world.  This 
manner  of  thought  has  long  been  coming  in.  Of  course  it  is 
not  new,  for  the  Bible  abundantly  contains  it,  but  it  has  been 
partially  put  out  of  sight  by  the  other  doctrine,  and  is  now 
returning  to  its  own.  God  is  more  and  more  regarded  as 
dwelling  and  working  in  the  world  itself,  and  the  natural 
order  as  his  way  of  operation.  The  common  method  of  the 
world  is  the  method  of  God — not  the  only  method  of  which 
he  is  capable,  but  the  method  that  he  is  now  employing. 
The  relation  of  God  to  his  world  must  be  more  fully  discussed 
elsewhere:  it  is  enough  here  to  speak  of  it  in  the  terms  just 
now  employed.  God  acts  within  the  order  of  the  world,  the 
doings  of  the  soul  and  the  movement  of  history,  and  has  the 
will  and  wisdom  to  make  of  the  whole  a  system  that  serves  his 
ends.  We  do  not  say  by  preference  that  he  interferes  or  inter¬ 
venes  in  human  events,  because  we  judge  that  he  is  in  the 
course  of  events  already.  The  communicating  God  is  in  touch 
with  human  spirits,  and  the  coordinating  God  has  his  touch 
upon  human  events.  He  is  more  manifest  in  one  part  of  the 
course  of  events  than  in  another,  but  there  is  no  need  that  he 
interrupt  the  order  of  things,  or  break  through  into  our 
world,  for  the  order  is  already  his,  and  in  our  world  he  is  at 
work.  But  we  must  not  forget  that  the  indwelling  God  is  a 
,God  indwelling,  not  a  mere  equivalent  of  the  forces  of  the 
world.  Pantheism  can  have  no  providence,  for  in  order  to  a 
providence  there  must  be  a  living  and  intelligent  God.  What 
makes  God’s  work  in  the  world  a  providence  is,  that  the  God 
who  works  in  all  things  has  wisdom  and  power  to  coordinate 
the  course  of  nature  and  life  into  a  system  that  is  his  own  and 
serves  his  will.  He  is  greater  than  nature  and  greater  than 
men.  He  is  greater  than  the  world,  and  the  universe,  or 
there  would  be  no  providence  at  all.  He  is  the  master,  the 
meaning-giver,  the  mysterious  controller,  the  worker-out  of  a 
purpose  that  makes  a  unity  of  the  whole.  His  providence  is 
the  coordinating  control  of  the  indwelling  God,  giving  to 
the  course  of  life  the  significance  that  corresponds  to  his 
presence  and  purpose. 


200 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


It  is  nothing  against  this  that  in  speaking  thus  we  say 
inore_than  we  can  explain.  We  cannot  expound  separate 
events  and  tell  what  each  means,  or  show  how  divine  and 
human  work  together.  The  mystery  will  never  be  gone  from 
life.  But  though  we  cannot  wholly  explain  the  providence 
of  an  indwelling  God,  certain  true  and  important  things 
about  it  may  be  said. 

The  providence  of  the  indwelling  God  is  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  life  on  the  principle  that  all  life  has  spiritual  meaning 
and  value.  God,  acting  in  the  forces  and  methods  of  the 
world  in  which  life  is  lived,  and  in  the  methods  and  principles 
of  spiritual  existence,  influences  and  directs  the  life  of  men 
in  view  of  the  spiritual  significance  of  their  being.  This  is 
the  kind  of  providence  that  is  attributed  to  God  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  especially  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  the  Master. 

This  doctrine  puts  providence  in  its  right  place  among  the 
relations  between  God  and  men.  With  moral  government  it 
is  almost  identical.  In  providence  the  principles  of  moral 
government  are  applied  to  life.  Providence  is  the  operation 
of  “  that  power,  not  ourselves,  which  makes  for  righteousness,” 
which  power  is  God — not  some  impersonal  energy,  but  the 
eternal  character  and  will.  In  providence  the  divine  demand 
for  the  right  and  good  is  applied  and  illustrated,  the  retributive 
principle  is  wrought  out  in  the  spiritual  field,  and  the  training 
of  souls  which  moral  government  implies  is  carried  on.  It 
is  evident  also  that  providence  is  scarcely  more  than  a  form  of 
fatherhood.  So  Jesus  says,  with  matchless  beauty,  teaching 
the  children  that  they  are  under  the  Father’s  providential 
care.  Providence  is  the  Father’s  practical  administration 
of  the  life  that  he  has  produced :  it  is  paternal,  directed  to  the 
ends  for  which  existence  was  given  to  moral  beings. 

The  providence  of  the  indwelling  God  is  continuous,  not 
fragmentary.  Not  in  occasional  appearance  does  it  consist: 
not  in  descent  from  heaven,  or  special  deliverances  for  his 
children,  or  strokes  of  lightning  that  kill  the  wicked,  or 
storms  that  scatter  forces  of  evil.  It  does  not  consist  in  inter¬ 
ruptions  of  the  order  of  nature.  It  is  always  at  work,  operat- 


PROVIDENCE 


201 


ing  in  the  forces  that  give  life  a  continuous  significance.  It 
includes  the  startling  crises,  but  it  includes  also  the  quiet 
working  of  the  forces  by  which  they  are  brought  about.  It 
means  that  God  is  in  all  life,  and  in  all  life  is  working.  Shall 
we  say  that  God  is  as  patient  as  nature  ?  or  that  nature  is  as 
patient  as  God  ? — or  rather  that  the  patience  of  nature  is  but 
a  partial  expression  of  the  patience  of  God  ? 

The  providence  of  the  indwelling  God  is  over  all.  A 
providence  of  interpositions  might  serve  the  ends  of  favourit¬ 
ism,  and  the  doctrine  of  it  might  be  the  faithful  servant  of  a 
doctrine  of  partialism  in  God.  So  indeed  it  has  often  been. 
Providence  has  often  been  interpreted  as  a  special  divine  care 
over  a  certain  favoured  part  of  humanity.  But  the  providence 
of  an  indwelling  God  can  scarcely  be  devoted  in  any  manner 
to  promoting  the  special  interests  of  a  part.  Such  a  provi¬ 
dence  must  be  as  impartial  in  its  range  as  the  light  of  the  sun. 
If  God  is  acting  in  the  natural  and  spiritual  forces  that 
affect  mankind,  he  is  acting  there  upon  all,  and  for  all,  who 
are  included  in  mankind.  Such  a  providence  concerns  them 
all :  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise,  and  sendeth  rain,  everywhere 
alike.  Nay,  it  must  extend,  as  the  method  of  God,  to  all 
spiritual  beings  who  have  ever  lived.  A  different  set  of  con¬ 
ditions  may  exist  in  another  world,  but  the  administration  of 
the  life  of  spiritual  beings  in  view  of  its  spiritual  significance 
and  value  must  continue,  as  long  as  the  life  itself  continues. 

The  providence  of  the  indwelling  God  implies  the  useful¬ 
ness  of  the  natural  order  for  spiritual  purposes,  and  turns 
natural  experiences  to  spiritual  account.  The  life  of  the 
human  being  in  its  present  mode  is  one,  a  single  life,  with  its 
material  and  its  spiritual  aspects.  Filled  with  a  sense  of  the 
importance  of  the  spiritual,  the  ethical,  the  religious,  we 
might  think  that  this  must  constitute  a  life  by  itself,  to  which 
alone  the  interest  of  God  would  be  given.  Earnest  souls 
have  sometimes  tried  to  act  as  if  this  were  so,  labouring  to 
keep  their  hearts  fixed  exclusively  upon  that  spiritual  element 
in  which  alone  they  thought  that  God  could  be  concerned. 
The  mingling  of  the  material  and  spiritual  in  personal  life 


202 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


does  bring  difficulties  to  the  doctrine  of  providence.  It  is 
easy  to  believe  in  the  care  of  God  over  the  life  of  the  soul,  and 
to  think  of  him  as  acting  upon  it,  since  it  moves  in  the  realm  of 
freedom,  which  is  the  most  significant  realm,  both  to  us  and 
to  him.  But  the  natural  order  of  the  world  appears  less 
free,  or  not  free  at  all,  and  it  seems  another  world.  There 
events  come  one  out  of  another  by  an  irresponsible  unfold¬ 
ing.  What  deep  meaning,  we  ask,  can  there  be  in  physical 
events  ?  How  can  God  turn  them  to  spiritual  use  ?  and  how 
can  there  be  a  genuine  providence,  in  which  the  seemingly 
self-acting  system  of  natural  causation  is  included  ? 

The  doctrine  of  an  interventional  providence  admits  that 
natural  events  can  be  made  to  serve  spiritual  uses,  but  tends 
to  imply  that  they  require  special  divine  interposition  to 
make  them  do  so.  Nature  must  be  interrupted  or  over¬ 
ruled,  or  turned  to  account:  God  can  make  it  serviceable, 
but  it  is  not  so  in  itself:  apart  from  his  overruling,  the  natural 
order  of  life  is  something  that  opposes  rather  than  helps  the 
spiritual  purpose  of  God  and  meaning  of  life.  This  comes 
of  setting  God  too  far  outside  of  his  world:  his  world  is 
made  void  of  inherent  spiritual  value — a  thing  that  cannot  be 
done  without  in  the  end  discrediting  God  himself.  But  the 
providence  of  the  indwelling  God  is  a  providence  that  works 
through  all  agencies  and  relations  with  which  men  are  con¬ 
cerned.  What  else  indeed  should  be  expected  from  the 
providence  of  the  God  who  is  the  source  of  all?  In  his 
world,  life  is  really  one,  and  all  elements  that  compose  it 
can  be  woven  into  the  purpose  of  serving  the  highest  end. 
Any  of  them  may  be  misused,  but  all  are  adapted  to  the 
one  design.  This  doctrine  of  providence  corresponds 
entirely  to  what  we  know  of  life,  for  we  find  our  spiritual 
advantage  a  thousand  times  in  physical  contingencies  that 
display  in  themselves  no  moral  quality.  That  means  that 
God  in  his  providential  wisdom  knows  how  to  make  a  whole 
out  of  what  seem  to  be  but  scattered  parts.  He  is  in  all  and 
through  all  and  over  all,  and  has  so  constituted  the  world  that 
he  can  use  its  various  movements  for  his  moral  end. 


PROVIDENCE 


203 


Providence  of  an  indwelling  God  of  course  implies  all 
that  is  meant  by  sovereignty,  in  God  himself.  How  much 
this  means,  we  have  already  seen  that  our  definitions  may 
fail  to  tell;  but  it  certainly  includes  a  mysterious  power  to 
guide  both  natural  and  voluntary  forces  to  the  fulfilment  of 
his  own  ends.  These  ends  are  spiritual,  and  holy;  and  the 
doctrine  of  providence  implies  that  the  God  of  the  purpose 
is  adequate  to  the  fulfilment.  It  aflirms  a  purpose  in  the 
general  movement  of  human  life,  in  which  God  is  greater 
than  man:  something  is  sought  and  will  be  gained  which  is 
not  of  man’s  choosing  but  of  God’s.  Here  we  are  led  beyond 
j)ur  power  to  explain,  as  we  are  in  all  doctrines  of  the  relation 
between  God  and  m^,  for  we  are  led  to  assert  a  power  of 
God  to  use  free  actors  for  the  accomplishing  of  his  own  will. 
Somehow  he  must  be  guiding  them  from  above  their  freedom, 
directing  them  in  a  mysterious  control  of  which  they  are 
unaware,  and  that  does  not  destroy  their  responsibility  in 
what  they  do.  It  is  certain  that  the  world  must  look  very 
differently  from  God’s  point  of  view  and  from  ours,  and  it  is 
from  his  point  of  view  that  it  consistently  appears  as  a 
eWorld  governed  by  providence.  All  doctrine  of  providence 
4^nplies_the^uperiority  of  God  and  his  ability  to  exercise  a 
spiritual  control  that  we  cannot  explain.  His  power  works 
upon  a  higher  plane  than  that  of  human  freedom,  and 
mysteriously  contfoT^ffee  beings  for  their  good;  and  this 
beneficent  power  is  so  inwrought  to  the  creation  of  the jvorld 
and  man  that  God  exercises  it  through  the  methods  that  are 
normal  to  his  created  works. 

Nevertheless,  although  we  refuse  to  define  providence  as  a 
divine  occasionalism  breaking  through  a  regular  order,  we 
meet  the  question  whether  jt  consists  exclusively  in  God’s 
operation  in  the  natural  order  of  the  world.  Is  this  all  ?  or 
does  providence  involve  the  working  of  a  higher  order  also, 
congenial  to  God,  which  now  and  then  appears  amidst  the 
operations  of  the  method  that  is  familiar  to  us?  Does 
providence  include  supernatural  occurrences  as  well  as 


204 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


natural  ?  We  meet  this  question  in  the  conviction  that  in 
providence  we  contemplate  a  God  too  great  to  be  fully  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  natural  order  of  this  world  as  we  understand 
that  order.  There  is  more  in  him  than  nature  can  express, 
and  it  may  well  be  that  he  desires  to  manifest  more  of  himself 
than  can  thus  be  represented.  Works  transcending  this 
world^s  order  would  be  incredible  if  nature  were  the  whole, 
but  there  is  an  outreaching  and  communicating  God,  for 
whose  fulness  nature  offers  only  an  inadequate  language. 
Since  there  is  such  a  God,  it  is  in  harmony  with  reason  that 
his  creatures  may  now  and  then  hear  among  them  a  voice 
that  is  not  of  this  world.  If  we  think  of  God  as  limited  by 
any  necessity  to  his  actual  method,  we  shall  not  be  thinking 
of  him  as  really  God.  We  call  man  a  free  agent,  but  much 
more  a  free  agent  is  he  from  whom  the  type  of  man’s  freedom 
came. 

It  is  here,  in  the  study  of  providence,  that  we  properly 
meet  the  question  whether  God  works  miracles  in  his  world. 
This  is  a  question  that  is  greatly  clarified  by  being  considered 
in  its  proper  context,  which  is  not  usually  done.  The  context 
is  human.  The  question  of  miracles  is  usually  put  forward 
as  a  question  of  the  relation  of  God  to  the  order  of  nature; 
but  it  is  a  question  that  has  no  interest,  or  even  existence, 
outside  the  human  field.  It  is  not  a  doctrine  of  Christianity 
or  of  any  other  religion  that  in  his  relations  with  the  universe 
as  a  whole,  or  apart  from  the  affairs  of  men,  God  is  accus¬ 
tomed  to  depart  from  the  order  of  nature.  Where  men  are 
not  concerned,  miracles  are  not  attributed  to  him.  They 
are  never  assumed  to  have  occurred  in  the  geologic  ages. 
Creative  acts  of  universal  scope  are  of  course  attributed  to 
God,  but  not  to  these  is  the  name  miracles  given.  It  is  only 
within  the  human  circle  that  miracles  have  any  interest,  or 
are  ever  believed  to  have  been  wrought.  The  question  about 
miracles  is  simply  whether  in  his  dealing  with  men,  for  the 
sake  of  his  providential  purpose,  God  sometimes  departs 
from  the  order  of  nature.  The  question  is  limited  still 
further,  for  miracles  properly  have  place  only  in  the  material 


PROVIDENCE 


205 


world.  It  is  true  that  we  often  speak  of  the  miracle  of 
regeneration,  or  of  spiritual  gifts,  but  such  speaking  is  loose 
and  popular,  and  the  word  miracle  is  inaccurately  employed. 
According  to  universal  Christian  agreement,  the  field  of 
inward  spiritual  operation  is  open  to  God,  but  his  action 
there,  free  and  direct  though  it  is,  is  not  among  the  acts  to 
which  the  name  of  miracles  is  given.  The  communion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  divine  and  direct,  but  is  not  called  miracu- 
Ibtisr 

Thus  the  question  of  miracles  relates  on  the  one  hand  to 
external  nature,  and  on  the  other  to  the  spiritual  dealings  of 
God  with  men.  It  is  whether  for  the  sake  of  his  practical 
purpose  for  men,  or  for  some  of  them,  God  sometimes  sub- 
prdinates  the  ord(^  of  nature  to  his  higher  end,  and  does 
something'foFvdiich  it  does  not  provide. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  in  making  our  inquiry  in  this  form 
we  use  the  word  miracle  in  its  proper  sense.  In  the  present 
condition  of  inquiry  it  is  our  duty  to  use  the  word  clearly, 
and  to  mean  what  we  say.  Ambiguous  and  evasive  defini¬ 
tions  we  must  abandon.  It  is  not  surprising  that  they  have 
had  their  day  of  acceptance,  but  the  time  has  come  for  clearing 
the  field  of  them.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  a  mir¬ 
acle  cannot  be  defined  as  simply  a  wonder:  that  was  never 
a  definition,  or  anything  more  than  a  description  of  an  effect. 
The  most  natural  things  are  wonderful  when  they  are  unusual 
or  unknown.  Nor  can  we  define  a  miracle  as  an  act  of 
power^^for  we  know  that  power  is  evidenced  more  in  nature 
than  in  miracles.  Neither  are  we  defining  when  we  say 
that  a  miracle  is  a  sign :  that  does  not  tell  what  it  is,  but  what 
it  means.  It  is  more  important  to  note  that  miracles  are 
often  treated  in  discussion  as  if  they  were  acts  performed  by 
the  use  of  some  natural  force  not  understood  at  the  time, 
thoupi  liable  to  be  discovered  afterward.  Healings,  for 
example,  which  were  regarded  as  miraculous  when  they 
occurred,  are  said  to  have  been  performed  by  the  use  of 
natural  powers  unknown  to  the  beholders,  unknown  perhaps 
to  the  healer,  but  afterwards  included  in  human  knowledge. 


206 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


But  it  ought  long  ago  to  have  been  noticed,  and  must  cer¬ 
tainly  be  acknowledged  now,  that  this  solution  denies  the 
miraculous  element  in  such  events  entirely,  and  defends  the 
miracles  in  question  by  explaining  them  away.  The  expla¬ 
nation  expressly  affirms  that  the  events  are  natural,  and  have 
been  accounted  miraculous  only  because  of  human  ignorance. 
If  this  is  all,  there  are  no  miracles.  Doubtless  we  can 
fairly  account  for  some  works  recorded  as  miracles  on  this 
principle;  but  just  as  far  as  we  can  do  so,  it  is  our  duty 
and  privilege  to  withdraw  them  from  our  class  of  super¬ 
natural  events,  to  welcome  them  into  the  order  of  nature, 
and  to  adjust  our  idea  of  miracles  accordingly.  When 
we  speak  of  a  miracle,  we  have  no  right  to  mean  anything 
but  a  direct  act  of  God  in  the  material  realm,  outside 
the  course  of  nature.  This  we  do  mean  in  our  present 
inquiry.  But  we  do  not  inquire  whether  such  acts  are  per¬ 
formed  in  the  general  administration  of  the  universe:  we 
inquire  whether  God  sometimes  performs  them  in  the  course 
of  his  providence  over  men.  He  acts  upon  men  through 
what  we  call  the  natural  order  of  the  world:  does  he  also 
act  upon  them  through  departure  from  that  order? 

When  the  question  of  miracles  is  thus  put  where  it  belongs, 
as  a  question  about  God’s  method  in  providence,  it  appears 
in  its  true  light  in  reference  to  religion.  In  religion  it  is  not 
a  vital  question.  It  is  of  vital  importance  that  we  should 
know  the  moral  will  of  God  and  enter  his  fellowship  and  be 
loyal  to  his  purpose,  but  it  is  not  necessary  that  we  be  able 
to  describe  the  relation  of  his  action  to  the  order  of  nature. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  the  matters  that  are  supremely 
important  to  the  soul  are  not  of  this  kind.  If  God  operates 
in  his  world  by  miracle  or  if  he  does  not,  the  sjnritual  realities 
are^the  same.  In  either  case  he  is  the  living  God,  and  the 
significance  of  his  being  to  ours  cannot  be  changed. 

There  is  another  reason,  however,  why  the  recognition  of 
miracles  cannot  be  of  vital  importance  to  the  soul.  There  is 
no  way  to  identify  any  occurrence  as  miraculous,  except  by 
evidence,  which  must  consist  in  testimony,  and  human  judg- 


PROVIDENCE 


207 


merit.  Whether  any  past  event  which  has  been  so  regarded 
was  really  miraculous  must  be  judged  by  each  for  himself, 
in  the  best  light  that  he  can  obtain.  The  days  are  past  when  a 
thousand  natural  events  could  be  regarded  as  miraculous  sim¬ 
ply  because  they  were  wonderful.  Since  miracles  came  to  be 
considered  more  thoughtfully,  it  has  been  recognized  that  our 
belief  in  them  must  rest  first  upon  our  conviction  that  they 
are  possible,  and  then  upon  convincing  evidence  that  they 
have  occurred.  Accordingly  it  has  been  customary  to  cite 
the  witnesses  and  marshal  the  evidence.  The  occurring  of 
miracles  has  thus  been  included  among  the  things  that  we 
cannot  be  sure  of  except  through  the  testimony  of  our  fellows. 
But  nothing  can  be  indispensable  to  the  soul  before  God,  to 
which  the  massing  of  human  testimony  is  indispensable. 
The  certainties  that  are  the  food  of  eternal  life,  which 
alone  are  essential  to  religion,  are  certainties  in  themselves, 
of  which  man  can  become  sure  for  himself  through  fellowship 
with  God. 

It  is  still  to  be  added  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of 
miracles  that  can  attest  spiritual  truth.  The  most  that  is 
claimed  for  them  in  the  way  of  attestation  is  that  they  attest 
the  messengers  of  God,  and  give  us  confidence  that  their 
messages  come  to  us  by  divine  authority.  But  it  is  coming 
to  be  felt,  and  rightly,  that  the  message  does  not  derive 
authority  from  the  messenger,  but  rather  the  messenger  from 
the  message,  and  that  the  appeal  of  God  is  made  through 
his  truth.  The  witness  that  God  bears  to  his  own  spiritual 
work  for  men  is  borne  in  the  realm  of  the  spirit.  And  so  we 
say  on  the  whole  that  the  question  of  miracles  is  of  interest 
in  our  study  of  the  providence  of  God,  but  is  not  of  vital 
importance  in  religion,  which  rests  on  firmer  foundations 
than  that  of  miracle-working  power. 

Belief  in  miracles  as  a  part  of  the  divine  administration  of 
the  world  is  much  older  than  Christianity,  and  much  more 
widespread.  Without  defining  them,  all  antiquity  believed 
in  miracles,  and  the  belief  is  still  a  vital  one  in  great  parts  of 


208 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


mankind.  At  first  it  was  an  instinctive  confidence  in  the 
ability  of  the  divine  power  to  strike  into  human  affairs  with 
independent  action.  There  was  no  theory  of  nature  or 
natural  order  to  occasion  perplexity :  it  was  enough  that  God 
could  act  anywhere  at  any  moment,  and  his  unseen  power 
could  surprise  men  with  supernatural  help  or  harm.  It  was 
in  this  stage  of  knowledge  that  belief  in  miracles  came  to  be 
a  part  of  the  common  stock  of  belief  the  world  over.  But 
when  God  came  to  be  conceived  more  intelligently  as  a  living 
Lord  and  Judge,  miracles  became  more  significant;  and  it 
was  in  view  of  the  reign  of  God,  not  of  mere  power,  that  the 
Christian  belief  in  miracles  became  so  strong  an  element  in 
life  and  doctrine. 

Unlike  other  faiths  that  hold  to  miracles,  Christianity  has 
lived  on  into  the  very  midst  of  the  scientific  stage  of  thought, 
which  indeed  it  has  been  an  important  agent  in  bringing  on. 
The  resulting  situation  is  peculiar  and  difficult.  It  is  a 
striking  fact  that  the  Christian  religion  has  come  into  the 
modern  age  with  no  very  general  break  in  its  belief  in  miracles. 
In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  it  is  held  that  direct  inter¬ 
ventions  of  divine  power  are  of  daily  and  hourly  occurrence, 
largely  through  intercession  of  the  saints.  Protestants 
oftener  speak  of  the  age  of  miracles  as  past — not  because  they 
are  impossible  now,  but  because  for  some  good  reason  it  was 
the  will  of  God  that  they  should  cease.  Not  all  think  so, 
however,  and  in  the  rank  and  file  of  protestantism  there  are 
multitudes  who  would  be  ready  to  acknowledge  miracles  at 
any  hour.  There  are  many  to  whom  miracles  appear  to  be 
the  glory  of  the  world :  in  the  past  they  are  the  very  sign  and 
evidence  of  God,  and  it  is  hoped  that  still  more  splendid 
supernatural  interventions  may  vindicate  him  in  the  future. 
The  genuineness  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible  is 
generally  maintained.  Apologists  often  admit  that  some  of 
them  might  be  dispensed  with  and  the  faith  stand  firm,  but  it 
is  usually  held  that  without  the  greatest  of  them  there  could 
be  no  Christianity — often,  that  there  could  be  no  salvation 
for  any  one. 


PROVIDENCE 


209 


Bringing  such  belief  as  this,  Christianity  has  come  under 
the  influences  of  the  scientific  age.  It  has  come  to  the  period 
of  definitions,  when  belief  in  the  wonderful,  or  even  in  the 
supernatural,  however  sincere,  is  not  enough  to  make  a 
satisfactory  doctrine,  and  the  idea  of  the  miraculous  must 
find  its  place  among  other  ideas.  It  has  brought  its  belief 
to  a  time  when  the  order  of  nature  is  regarded  as  a  constant 
order,  and  the  continuity  of  causation  is  accepted  as  an  axiom. 
The  modern  conception  of  the  unity  of  the  world  does  not 
favour  the  belief  in  special  interferences  with  its  order;  and 
at  the  same  time  the  study  of  religious  history  shows  how  far 
belief  in  miracles  is  from  being  proof  of  their  reality.  Thus 
Christianity  has  come  under  various  influences  that  tend  to 
disintegrate  its  old  belief.  Nevertheless,  the  sense  of  the 
preciousness  of  the  miraculous  has  not  departed.  The  old 
religious  joy  in  the  presence  of  a  wonder-working  God  per¬ 
sists,  and  is  associated  with  much  that  is  best  in  Christian 
feeling. 

But  whatever  the  feeling  of  Christians  about  it  may  be,  the 
doctrine  of  miracles  is  more  and  more  being  superseded  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  indwelling  God.  As  long  as  God  was  con¬ 
ceived  mainly  as  reigning  elsewhere  and  communicating 
with  men  only  by  special  revelation,  it  was  natural  to  think 
of  him  as  shown  to  men  by  extraordinary  action.  Such 
belief  was  the  clearest  form  of  belief  in  an  active  living  God. 
If  the  Almighty  was  beyond  the  world,  he  must  break  in. 
The  idea  was  not  only  natural,  but  practically  essential  to 
strong  religion,  as  long  as  God  was  in  some  sense  localized 
outside.  But  he  is  localized  no  longer.  Not  only  is  his  con¬ 
nection  with  his  spiritual  creation  most  intimate,  but  the 
steady,  regular,  self-continuing  order  of  the  universe  is 
recognized  as  his  own  order,  truly  expressive  of  his  wisdom 
and  his  will.  He  has  not  to  break  into  the  world,  for  he  is  in 
the  world.  He  needs  not  to  break  the  order  if  he  would  express 
himself,  for  the  order  itself  expresses  him.  He  can  break 
the  order  if  he  desires,  but  the  assumed  need  of  his  doing  so 
for  self-expression  does  not  exist.  In  view  of  such  a  vision 


210 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


of  God  in  his  world,  miracles  cannot  be  as  prominent  in 
Christian  thought  as  they  were  when  God  was  differently 
conceived.  All  religious  thinking  at  present  is  subject  to 
influences  that  make  miracles  seem  at  once  less  necessary  and 
less  likely  to  have  occurred;  and  the  influences  are  not 
illegitimate  ones.  The  modern  loss  of  interest  in  miracles 
is  not  due  chiefly  to  unbelief,  as  many  have  feared,  but  to  the 
great  change  that  has  come  over  the  prevailing  conception  of 
God.  His  providence  seems  to  follow  other  methods.  Ac¬ 
cordingly  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  attitude  of  apologetical 
thought  toward  miracles  is  radically  changed.  Christianity 
was  once  defended  on  the  ground  of  its  miracles,  which  were 
held  to  be  both  indispensable  and  conclusive.  But  now  the 
miracles  are  oftener  defended  on  the  ground  that  they  are  fit 
accompaniments  of  so  divine  a  revelation  as  Christianity 
brings  from  God.  Christ  was  once  believed  in  because  of 
the  miracles,  but  now  the  miracles  are  believed  in  because 
of  Christ.  So  complete  a  revolution  in  the  method  of  con¬ 
sidering  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  is  profoundly 
significant,  and  significant  of  a  very  wholesome  change  in 
thought.  It  is  far  more  Christian-like  to  believe  in  the 
miracles  because  of  Christ  than  to  believe  in  Christ  because 
of  the  miracles. 

Practically,  the  sum  of  the  matter  is  that  in  modern  days 
we  are  aware  of  two  strong  influences  bearing  upon  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  miracles  as  an  element  in  the  providence  of  God. 
On  the  one  hand  there  is  strong  influence  to  make  us  believe 
that  there  are  no  genuine  miracles  such  as  we  have  defined, 
and  never  have  been  any;  that  God  never  departed  from  the 
natural  order  that  he  has  established,  and  that  all  supposed 
miracles  have  been  accounted  such  through  some  kind  of 
misconception,  which  has  been  both  sincere  and  blame¬ 
less.  Science  finds  no  evidence  of  departure  from  the  natural 
order,  or  any  place  for  it;  and  there  is  a  growing  Christian 
conviction  that  the  indwelling  and  informing  God  is  not 
likely  to  depart  from  an  order  that  he  himself  has  estab¬ 
lished  as  a  worthy  permanent  expression  of  his  will.  And  on 


PROVIDENCE 


211 


the  other  hand  there  is  a  strong  impulse  to  believe  the  oppo¬ 
site,  and  be  sure  that  the  free  Omnipotent  manifests  himself 
by  breaking  through  his  order  when  he  will.  The  religious 
heart  cries  out  for  clear  signs  of  the  great  presence,  and 
declares  that  the  God  of  its  trust  is  no  silent  force  but  a 
wonder-working  Friend.  Whether  either  of  these  influences 
will  ever  consent  to  be  silenced  by  the  other,  it  is  difficult  now 
to  tell;  but  there  are  some  things  that  we  may  fairly  say 
about  the  two  positions. 

If  miracles  have  never  occurred,  God’s  providence  is  com¬ 
plete  without  them.  For  on  the  one  hand  the  natural  order 
of  the  world  is  not  an  alien  and  godless  thing,  but  is  God’s 
own  order.  He  is  in  it  and  works  through  it,  and  it  is  in  its 
own  field  an  expression  of  himself.  He  has  no  need  to  inter¬ 
rupt  or  destroy  it  if  he  desires  to  be  manifest  in  the  world. 
On  the  other  hand  there  is  open  to  God  the  entire  field  of 
direct  spiritual  operation,  or  influence  upon  souls.  As  we 
have  said,  some  give  to  such  works  of  God  the  name  of 
miracles:  the  Christian  life  is  said  to  be  a  miraculous  life, 
and  Christ  himself  to  be  the  greatest  of  miracles  in  his  spiritual 
character  and  work.  This  is  not  the  clearest  and  most 
helpful  way  of  using  terms,  and  we  do  better  if  we  keep  the 
name  miracles  to  its  narrower  meaning.  The  conversable¬ 
ness  of  God  with  men,  as  the  Puritan  divine,  John  Howe, 
has  named  it,  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  natural  order  of  life 
for  us  as  our  conversableness  with  one  another,  and  we 
extend  it  in  our  thoughts  instead  of  restricting  it,  when  we 
take  it  out  of  the  class  of  the  miraculous.  The  whole  world 
of  spiritual  intercourse  and  influence  is  open  to  God,  and  this 
is  enough  to  constitute  his  operation  among  men  a  providence. 
With  an  unbroken  natural  method  and  an  unbounded  spirit¬ 
ual  freedom  of  access  to  men,  God  is  intelligibly  the  Lord 
of  providence. 

If  there  are  miraclea,^  however,  God’s  providence  includes 
them  and  gives  them  meaning.  In  any  case  they  are  not 
detached  events,  but  occupy  a  place  in  the  significant  purpose 
of  God.  Such  events  as  we  have  defined  miracles  to  be, 


212 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


being  events  in  the  material  world,  cannot  be  ultimate:  they 
are  only  means  to  an  end.  They  are  means  to  the  end  of 
God’s  providence,  which  is  the  training  of  souls.  God’s 
providence  is  in  general  the  administration  of  a  settled  and 
trustworthy  world.  His  method  is  based  in  part  upon  what 
we  call  the  uniformity  of  nature,  which  in  the  large  is  a  bless¬ 
ing  to  mankind.  If  God  works  miracles  in  the  world,  still 
we  may  be  sure  that  he  will  not  make  them  so  frequent  and 
numerous  as  to  weaken  his  children’s  confidence  in  the 
stability  of  their  life.  They  will  not  be  so  plentiful  as  to 
dominate  the  character  of  human  affairs.  That  would  not 
be  like  the  God  who  has  established  the  world.  They  will 
serve  some  special  ends  in  his  providence  that  could  not 
otherwise  be  served  so  well.  They  may  well  be  ministrant 
to  his  great  design  of  grace  unto  salvation.  They  will  be 
signs  of  God :  not  sole  signs,  as  if  God  were  otherwise  unex¬ 
pressed,  or  even  as  if  he  could  be  most  worthily  expressed  by 
exceptional  works,  and  yet  real  signs  of  God,  helpful  to  the 
faith  of  such  among  his  children  as  need  such  helps.  Jesus 
is  recorded  to  have  expressly  disparaged,  faith  that  was 
founded  upon  them,  in  comparison  with  faith  that  was 
grounded  in  spiritual  realities,  and  the  Christian  doctrine 
must  always  estimate  the  two  forms  of  confidence  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  this  mind  of  the  Master.  It  would  be  well  if  pop¬ 
ular  thinking  among  Christians  were  to  come  into  intelligent 
unity  with  Christ  in  this.  Better  is  the  faith  that  needs  no 
outward  sign,  and  it  is  time  for  theology  to  take  this  position 
without  reserve. 


6.  SAVIOUR 

The  glory  of  Christianity  is  salvation.  The  new  faith 
sprang  up,  after  the  departure  of  its  Founder,  from  the  great 
experience  in  which  men  found  peace  with  God,  were  morally 
transformed,  and  were  born  into  the  hope  of  perfection. 
The  new  life  was  a  personal  possession,  and  it  was  more. 
It  was  the  crown  of  individual  existence,  and  it  implied  the 


SAVIOUR 


213 


awakening  of  a  brotherly  love  and  righteousness  that  would 
work  out  into  a  social  salvation.  It  peopled  the  kingdom  of 
God  with  saved  souls,  and  thus  created  the  kingdom  of  God 
among  men  for  the  fulfilment  of  God’s  large  purpose.  This 
song  of  experience  and  hope  is  the  new  song  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  the  sound  of  it  has  gone  forth  in  all  Christian 
times  and  places. 

Of  course  salvation  is  fundamentally  an  ethical  fact,  for 
it  contemplates  men  as  involved  in  sin.  It  is  correct  enough, 
indeed,  to  speak  of  men  as  saved  from  danger  or  from  pun¬ 
ishment,  but  the  Christian  vocabulary  is  richer  in  meaning. 
Salvation  deals  with  more  than  punishment  or  danger:  it 
is  the  comprehensive  good  that  men  need  because  of  their 
sinfulness.  It  includes  both  ethical  change  and  the  practical 
consequences  of  such  change,  but  the  change  is  the  funda¬ 
mental  element.  It  includes  deliverance  from  evil  both  in 
character  and  in  destiny,  and  realization  of  all  good  possi¬ 
bilities;  forgiveness  for  the  past,  and  successful  existence 
under  God’s  gracious  influence  in  the  future.  It  has  effect 
upon  all  traits  of  character,  all  works  of  life,  and  all  relations 
in  which  men  may  stand.  It  is  a  present  gift,  and  a  gift  to 
be  completed  in  another  life.  It  is  personal,  it  is  social,  it  is 
racial,  and  so  far  as  its  ideal  is  realized  it  is  universal,  since 
all  need  it  and  to  all  it  is  adapted. 

This  salvation  has  always  been  ascribed  with  loyal  grati¬ 
tude  to  Jesus  Christ,  adored  and  loved  as  the  Saviour  of  the 
world.  He  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost,  and 
his  gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  It  is  true  that 
as  to  the  work  by  which  he  became  the  Saviour,  and  the 
precise  relation  that  he  bears  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
result,  no  single  explanation  has  ever  been  universally  ac¬ 
cepted.  There  have  been  many  theories  of  his  saving  work, 
but  no  one  of  them  has  ever  become  the  one  Christian  account 
of  the  matter,  and  happily  no  Christian  authority  has  ever 
attempted  to  dictate  a  theory  to  those  who  put  their  trust 
in  him.  The  experience  of  salvation  and  the  modes  of 
thought  in  different  ages  have  been  so  various  as  to  prevent 


214 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


any  uniformity  of  explanation.  None  the  less,  however,  does 
salvation  stand  always  associated  with  Jesus  Christ.  The 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  commemorate  him  as  Saviour 
and  offer  him  gratitude  and  love  without  measure.  The 
creeds  of  Christendom  assign  to  him  the  same  position,  and 
the  hymns  of  the  Church  in  all  ages  have  sung  the  praises 
of  the  Saviour  Christ. 

No  one  has  ever  supposed,  however,  that  the  Jesus  whom 
the  Gospels  show  us  was  the  originator  of  salvation.  The 
Christian  faith  and  doctrine  declare  that  salvation  originated 
in  God.  Father  and  Son  being  distinguished  in  thought,  it 
has  always  been  held  that  salvation  originated  in  the  Father. 
So  in  the  Scriptures.  In  the  synoptical  Gospels,  Jesus  is 
among  men  as  the  messenger  of  grace  and  help,  doing  the 
FatheFs  will.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  he  is  even  more  em¬ 
phatically  represented  as  sent  by  the  Father  to  give  life  to 
men,  and  as  living  solely  to  accomplish  that  which  the 
Father  had  given  him  to  do.  The  Johannine  writings  are 
justly  represented  by  the  familiar  words,  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son’^  (Jn.  iii.  16),  and 
the  Pauline  writings  are  no  less  truly  represented  by  the 
similar  saying,  “  God  commendeth  his  own  love  toward  us, 
in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us”  (Rom. 
V.  8).  This  truth  has  always  remained  in  the  Christian 
teaching,  though  justice  has  not  always  been  done  to  it. 
What  Jesus  has  done  for  the  salvation  of  the  world  has  been 
presented  as  the  expression  of  the  eternal  heart  and  counsel 
of  God,  from  whom  as  its  originator  the  whole  work  came. 
“That your  faith  and  hope  may  be  in  God”  (1  Pet.  i.  21)  has 
been  rightly  said  to  be  the  substance  of  Christ’s  message  and 
the  purpose  of  his  life  and  death.  We  do  him  wrong  if  we 
detach  him  from  the  Father  here.  It  is  God’s  love  that 
shines  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  and  is  revealed  by  his  cross, 
and  it  is  because  of  this  that  the  Christian  confidence  in 
salvation  exults  in  the  immovableness  of  its  foundation. 
Nothing  could  be  firmer  than  a  hope  grounded  in  God. 


SAVIOUR 


215 


Here  we  have  the  supreme  illustration  of  the  truth  which 
lies  at  the  base  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  that  in  Jesus 
Christ  we  have  true  revealing  of  God.  This  does  not  mean 
something  technical,  as  if  in  Christ  we  had  received  a  formula 
concerning  the  divine  nature.  It  means  that  Jesus  and  his 
life  and  work  constitute  a  great  expression  of  God  and  exhibi¬ 
tion  of  his  character.  It  is  true,  as  the  Fourth  Gospel  de¬ 
clares,  that  Jesus  is  not  alone  and  does  not  speak  from  himself. 
His  word  is  not  his  own  word,  but  what  he  has  seen  with  the 
Father  he  speaks  to  men,  and  the  action  of  his  life  is  not  his 
own  but  God’s  (Jn.  viii.  28;  xiv.  10).  Thus  he  represents 
the  unseen  Father,  and  sets  forth  to  human  knowledge  the 
character  of  the  eternal  will.  What  he  does  God  is  doing, 
and  such  as  he  is  God  is.  In  him  God  does  that  most 
direct  and  simple  work  of  revelation — he  shows  himself  as 
he  is.  Christ  we  know  as  Saviour,  and  God,  we  thereby 
know,  is  Saviour  also.  Christ  who  has  lived  and  died  among 
men,  and  God  whom  no  man  hath  seen,  are  called  by  this 
one  name.  Therefore,  if  we  wish  to  understand  God  as 
Saviour,  we  look  at  Christ.  In  his  life  and  spirit  is  the 
authorized  interpretation  of  the  divine  Saviourhood.  What 
then  do  we  see  in  Christ  the  Saviour  that  illuminates 
for  us  God  the  Saviour? 

We  have  said  that  Christ  was  absolutely  at  the  service  of 
God,  and  now  it  must  be  added  that  he  showed  it  by  being 
absolutely  at  the  service  of  men.  He  was  in  the  world  to 
serve  God  by  serving  men :  the  two  works  were  one.  We  see 
him  living  among  men,  and  showing  himself  day  by  day  as 
their  friend  and  helper.  Unselfish,  tender,  faithful,  he  does 
them  good  by  word  and  deed.  In  their  sinfulness  they  need 
penitence,  faith  and  loyalty  to  God.  He  turns  their  attention 
to  their  heavenly  Father,  and  teaches  them  a  religion  of 
sincerity,  simplicity  and  truth.  He  teaches  them,  and  what 
is  better  he  shows  them,  in  what  spirit  to  live  and  how  to  act 
toward  God  and  their  fellows.  He  hates  their  sinfulness 
unspeakably,  and  reproves  it  with  burning  indignation  and 
patient  love.  He  seeks  to  show  them  just  what  it  consists 


216 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


in,  and  labours  to  win  them  away  from  it  into  godly  life  and 
human  fellowship.  He  is  equally  the  enemy  of  evil  and  the 
friend  of  man.  To  the  service  of  men  he  gives  himself 
utterly.  He  suffers  with  them,  and  he  suffers  for  them.  He 
bears  with  their  hardness,  and  is  patient  under  their  indiffer¬ 
ence  and  abuse,  and  believes  in  them,  in  spite  of  all,  as  worth 
his  gracious  seeking.  He  surrenders  himself  unto  the  utter¬ 
most,  refusing  no  pain  or  burden,  and  freely  accepting  the 
death  of  the  cross,  that  he  may  be  the  means  of  bringing  home 
to  men  the  redemptive  love  of  God. 

This  on  his  own  part  was  the  attitude  of  Jesus  as  Saviour, 
and  this  is  the  life  in  which  we  are  to  see  the  Father.  In  our 
present  study  we  are  concerned  with  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
only  as  far  as  it  is  a  part  of  the  doctrine  of  God,  and  we  are 
interested  in  this  attitude  and  work  of  Jesus  because  it  was 
the  saving  heart  of  God  that  he  was  expressing,  and  the  saving 
will  of  God  that  he  was  working  out.  ‘Hf  ye  had  known  me, 
ye  would  have  known  my  Father  also^^  (Jn.  viii.  19).  Neither 
in  the  words  of  Jesus  nor  in  his  attitude  toward  either  God 
or  men  is  there  any  intimation  whatever  that  his  Father 
needed  or  desired  any  transaction,  directed  to  himself,  in 
order  that  it  might  be  possible  for  him  to  be  a  Saviour  and 
for  men  to  be  saved.  Rather,  according  to  the  Christian 
revelation,  Jesus  as  Saviour  is  for  men  the  expression  and 
equivalent  of  God  as  Saviour.  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling 
the  world  unto  himself.  In  what  Jesus  did  we  see  what  God 
was  doing.  The  words  and  the  Father  are  one”  (Jn. 
X.  30)  relate  to  the  work  of  salvation,  and  assert  that  the  sheep 
of  the  Son’s  flock  are  the  sheep  of  the  Father’s  flock  also, 
since  Father  and  Son  are  one  in  Saviourhood.  “The  Father 
sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world”  (1  Jn.  iv.  14), 
not  because  the  Father  was  not  the  Saviour,  but  because 
he  was. 

It  is  our  privilege  therefore  to  read  in  our  doctrine  of 
God  the  Saviourhood  which  Jesus  has  manifested  in  this 
world.  When  we  thus  follow  the  revealing  Christian  light, 
we  approach  the  central  truth  of  the  gospel.  God  is  no 


SAVIOUR 


217 


longer  in  obscurity:  his  position  toward  sinful  men  has 
been  made  plain.  As  is  Christ,  so  is  God. 

God,  like  Jesus,  holds  himself  at  the  service  of  sinful  men 
for  their  spiritual  good.  It  is  evident  that  at  the  outset  God 
thinks  of  men  as  worth  saving  from  sin,  and  as  capable  of 
being  saved.  Next  to  his  redemptive  character  of  holiness 
and  love,  God’s  belief  in  the  salvability  of  mankind  is  the 
greatest  hopeful  fact  that  lies  back  of  the  Christian  revelation. 
By  the  revealing  light  of  Christ  we  see  that  God  regards  men, 
and  has  always  regarded  them,  notwithstanding  the  depth  of 
their  sinfulness,  as  within  the  reach  of  his  holy  help.  Seeing 
men  thus  as  capable  of  salvation,  God  is  at  their  service. 
This  is  the  spirit  of  Saviourhood;  and  we  behold  this  spirit 
wrought  out  in  action  through  the  mission  of  Christ.  In 
spirit,  the  mission  of  the  Son  was  the  coming  of  the  Father, 
to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost.  It  is  God  that  seeks. 
The  matchless  expression  of  Godlike  character  in  human  life 
was  God’s  own  expression  of  his  own  character,  made  that 
men  might  come  from  sin  into  fellowship  with  such  love  and 
purity.  The  teaching  that  Jesus  gave  concerning  simple, 
sincere  religion,  with  direct  access  to  God,  was  God’s  own 
offer  of  himself  and  appeal  to  the  men  whose  loyalty  he  de¬ 
sired.  The  luminous  counsel  of  Jesus  concerning  duty  of 
man  to  man  was  God’s  own  instruction  to  his  unbrotherly 
children.  The  love  that  would  die  for  men  was  God’s  love. 
Beholding  Jesus,  we  behold  God. 

With  regard  to  sin,  when  Jesus  expressed  in  his  life  his 
deep  abhorrence  of  it,  he  was  doing  what  he  had  seen  with 
his  F&,ther.  God’s  abhorrence  of  sin  was  expressed  in  him. 
Jesus  so  hated  sin  as  to  desire  to  deliver  men  from  it,  and  so 
does  God.  Jesus’  hatred  of  sin  amounted  to  an  irresistible 
impulse  to  be  a  Saviour;  and  this  is  like  God:  it  is  like  God, 
too,  that  Jesus  was  inwardly  constrained  to  go  all  lengths 
and  make  all  sacrifices  in  order  to  save.  God  is  here  revealed 
as  the  great  enemy  of  human  evil,  who  spares  himself  no  cost 
that  he  may  save  men  from  it.  In  Jesus  we  see  how  hatred 


218 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


of  sin  and  love  for  the  sinful  need  no  reconciling  with  each 
other,  but  are  inseparable  aspects  of  one  affection,  which 
partakes  equally  of  the  nature  of  holiness  and  love.  Through 
Jesus  we  see  this  truth  dwelling  in  God,  that  hatred  of  sin 
and  desire  to  put  it  away  are  equal.  Under  the  quick  and 
powerful  impulse  of  this  two-sided  affection,  we  see  Jesus 
untiring  in  his  endeavour,  patient,  steadfast,  consecrated 
without  reserve  to  love’s  endeavour,  gladly  dying  for  men’s 
good.  This  is  revelation,  for  this  is  expressive  of  God,  who 
commendeth  his  own  love  toward  us,  not  merely  that  of 
Jesus,  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us 
(Rom.  V.  8).  As  Jesus  was  grieved  by  sin,  which  beat  upon 
his  purity  in  daily  contact  and  continually  prevented  the  satis¬ 
faction  of  his  love,  so  is  God  grieved  and  pained  by  the  sin 
of  the  world,  which  daily  does  despite  to  his  love  and  offends 
his  holiness.  In  his  own  grief,  Jesus  opens  for  us  a  living 
vision  of  the  heart  of  God,  and  gives  us  more  than  a  glimpse 
of  the  divine  sorrow  over  sin,  which  is  a  perpetual  reality. 
From  Jesus  we  learn  that  God  is  always  bearing  the  sin  of 
the  world  in  the  pain  that  it  gives  him,  and  in  the  constant 
endeavour  of  seeking  the  lost  which  it  entails;  and  Jesus  is 
our  evidence  that  God  willingly  bears  the  sin  of  the  world, 
because  of  his  perfect  and  persistent  grace.  For  the  joy  that 
was  set  before  him  Jesus  endured  the  cross,  despising  shame 
(Heb.  xii.  2);  and  so  does  God.  If  he  should  cease  to  bear 
the  sins  of  the  world  and  endure  the  cross,  there  could  be  no 
salvation;  but  God  has  in  himself  the  perpetual  fount  of 
mercy,  and  is  perpetually  doing  the  work  of  redemptive 
holiness.  Jesus  is  able  to  save  unto  the  uttermost  because 
God  is  willing  to  save  unto  the  uttermost. 

This  revelation  does  not  merely  concern  some  times  and 
seasons.  The  heart  of  it  is  that  what  is  manifested  in  Christ 
goes  on  eternally  in  God.  Jesus  really  reveals  God:  that 
is,  he  reveals  him  not  as  he  is  in  some  special  circumstances 
or  relations,  or  toward  some  special  group  of  his  creatures, 
but  as  he  really  is  in  himself,  by  virtue  of  his  nature.  He 
gives  us  to  know  the  actual  God,  the  only  God  that  ever  has 


SAVIOUR 


219 


been  or  will  be,  and  shows  us  that  God  as  Saviour.  That 
Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour  is  the  revealer  of  God  has  always 
been  held  by  Christians,  and  yet  the  essential  Saviourhood 
of  God,  which  is  necessarily  involved  in  that  belief,  has  been 
a  very  slow  lesson  for  Christendom  to  learn.  It  is  doubted, 
and  even  denied,  among  Christians.  Nevertheless,  the  lesson 
is  the  fundamental  gift  of  Christ.  If  it  were  not  for  the 
essential  and  eternal  Saviourhood  of  God,  there  would  be  no 
Christendom,  and  no  Christ,  and  no  salvation.  But  it  is 
true  that  God,  whom  no  one  has  ever  seen,  is  truly  manifested 
by  the  Son,  whereby  we  know  that  it  is  his  nature  to  do  for 
his  creation  such  work  of  holy  love  and  sacrifice  as  Jesus 
did  among  men. 

God’s  motive  and  impulse  toward  salvation  we  can  under¬ 
stand  from  human  analogies,  however  imperfect.  Some 
deadly  but  fascinating  practice  has  invaded  a  school  and  is 
spreading  among  the  pupils.  It  will  ruin  them  if  it  is  not 
checked.  The  master,  a  high-minded  and  faithful  man, 
knows  what  is  going  on,  and  is  unspeakably  grieved  at  the 
evil  and  indignant  at  the  welcome  that  it  receives.  He  hates 
it  for  itself  and  for  the  harm  that  it  is  doing:  he  sees  it  as  at 
once  a  vile  and  a  blameworthy  thing.  He  is  moved  with 
compassion  toward  those  who  are  yielding  to  temptation; 
moved,  too,  with  eager  desire  to  save  the  tempters  from 
their  deeper  sin.  He  feels  the  grief  of  righteousness  and  the 
wrath  of  love,  blending  in  the  intolerable  desire  to  save.  So 
with  his  purity,  his  righteousness,  his  grief,  his  anger  and  his 
love  mingling  in  one  overmastering  passion,  he  rises  in  his 
might  to  put  away  the  evil  and  save  his  pupils.  The  labour 
is  long  and  hard  and  wearisome,  but  he  will  not  remit  an 
endeavour  or  avoid  a  sacrifice:  nothing  will  satisfy  him  but 
that  at  whatever  cost  he  may  become  an  actual  saviour. 
He  is  happy  only  in  the  work.  If  he  could  be  satisfied  without 
interposing  with  all  his  might,  he  would  not  be  worthy  to  be 
entrusted  with  the  care  of  youth.  But  he  is  both  worthy  and 
competent,  the  plague  is  stayed,  and  the  perishing  are  saved. 


220 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


“If  ye  then,  being  evil/’  are  not  incapable  of  such  a  passion, 
“how  much  more  shall  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven,”  all¬ 
good,  be  a  Saviour  ? 

It  has  often  been  held  that  God,  who  might  save  or  not  as  he 
chose,  by  his  own  will  became  a  Saviour  to  a  certain  selected 
part  of  mankind — as  if  to  a  certain  class  in  the  school.  It 
is  often  represented  that  God  in  Christ  is  a  Saviour,  while 
God  out  of  Christ  is  no  Saviour.  In  various  ways  it  has  been 
represented  that  Christ  made  God  to  be  a  Saviour,  or  enabled 
him  to  act  as  one,  and  that  Christ  in  the  effect  of  his  work 
is  necessary  in  order  to  his  continuing  to  be  one.  But  the 
Christian  doctrine  is  that  Christ  reveals  God  as  he  really  and 
permanently  is;  and  this  means  that  with  reference  to  salva¬ 
tion  the  distinction  between  God  in  Christ  and  God  out  of 
Christ  is  not  a  true  distinction.  According  to  the  Christian 
light,  there  is  no  God  out  of  Christ,  unlike  the  God  whom  in 
Christ  we  find  revealed.  The  God  who  is  in  Christ  is  the 
only  God  there  is.  And  that  God  of  whom  Christ  is  the 
expression  is  not  one  who  becomes  a  Saviour  by  decree,  or 
makes  special  selection  of  those  upon  whom  his  Saviourhood 
may  successfully  go  forth.  When  God  is  a  Saviour  he  is 
simply  himself,  for  his  heart  is  a  Saviour’s  heart.  The  one 
God  who,  as  Paul  insists,  is  the  same  in  heart  toward  Jews 
and  Gentiles  is  the  same  toward  all  creatures.  Toward  all 
spirits  he  holds  one  attitude  as  Creator,  Father,  Friend;  and 
toward  all  who  are  sinful  he  holds  the  attitude  of  a  God  who 
hates  their  evil  and  seeks  their  good. 

This  doctrine  makes  of  the  Christian  gospel,  embodied  in 
Jesus  Christ,  not  an  exception  in  the  history  of  the  world,  or  a 
contrast  to  God’s  character,  or  a  contradiction  of  his  method 
elsewhere,  but  the  crown  and  culmination  of  his  characteristic 
work,  the  supreme  expression  of  his  real  life.  Christian  faith 
has  rightly  so  described  it,  though  Christian  thought  has  often 
wrongly  represented  Christianity  as  a  kind  of  exception.  The 
divine  Saviourhood  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  true  doctrine 
of  monotheism :  over  against  his  creation  the  only  God  stands 
as  well-wisher  and  helper  for  spiritual  good,  that  is,  as  Saviour. 


SAVIOUR 


221 


This  statement  is  true  of  the  entire  sum  of  created  being,  and 
of  course  it  is  true  of  the  human  world.  It  is  not  weakened 
by  the  fact  that  men  are  variously  related  to  him,  or  that  his 
action  toward  them  all  is  not  the  same.  Men  differ  in  regard 
to  him,  but  he  himself  is  not  altered  by  differences  in  them. 
We  cannot  think  that  God  is  more  a  Saviour  because  men 
accept  him,  or  less  because  they  ignore  him  or  hate  him  or 
have  never  heard  of  him.  He  is  the  same,  he  changes  not. 
His  servant  Augustine  was  first  an  infant  in  a  godly  mother’s 
arms,  then  a  boy  bright  but  thoughtless,  a  youth  wicked  and 
reckless,  a  man  doubting  and  faithless,  a  soul  awakened  to 
know  the  depth  of  sin,  a  new-born  witness  to  the  eternal  love, 
a  Christian  learning  the  way  of  God,  a  saint  rising  to  ecstasy 
in  Christ,  a  brother  and  friend  to  many  in  godliness,  an 
imperfect  child  of  God  growing  toward  perfection.  But  at 
every  moment  of  this  career  God  was  the  same  toward  him, 
the  Father  of  his  spirit,  the  Master  of  the  moral  order  in 
which  he  sinned  and  was  perishing,  the  Saviour  who  never 
left  or  forsook  him  because  of  his  sin,  who  delighted  to  have 
mercy  upon  him,  and  who  bore  with  all  his  faults  while  he 
was  leading  him  to  full  salvation.  This  God  also  was  the 
God  of  all.  Toward  all  the  men  of  Augustine’s  day  he  was 
at  heart  the  same  holy  Lord  and  Saviour,  whether  they  were 
pagans  or  Christians,  bad  or  good.  They  saw  him  with 
various  eyes,  or  not  at  all,  but  he  was  One  and  unchangeable. 
And  so,  whatever  stages  of  moral  existence  humanity  or  any 
part  of  it  may  at  any  time  be  passing  through,  God  is  the 
same  always  and  toward  all.  Master  of  the  moral  order  and 
God  with  a  Saviour’s  heart.  What  he  does  for  men  must 
necessarily  vary  with  their  condition,  but  in  himself  he  never 
changes.  His  Saviourhood,  like  his  character  of  Moral 
Governor,  is  grounded  in  his  very  being. 

In  this  unchanging  Saviourhood  God  bears  the  sin  of  the 
world,  in  the  spirit  of  redemptive  and  suffering  love.  To  us, 
even  a  little  of  the  evil  of  the  world  seems  intolerable,  when 
once  we  feel  it  for  a  moment  somewhat  as  it  is.  But  God, 


222 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


knowing  it  all,  bears  it  all  in  infinite  patience,  because  of  the 
love  in  which  he  seeks  to  save.  On  abstract  grounds  it  has 
been  doubted  whether  God  can  suffer.  Even  on  such  grounds 
the  doubt  is  needless;  but  when  we  learn  of  Jesus  we  clearly 
see  how  God  suffers  because  of  sin.  From  Jesus  we  learn, 
too,  that  redemptive  suffering  is  the  highest  bliss.  If  the  ob¬ 
jects  of  one’s  love  can  be  redeemed  from  evil  only  by  his  suffer¬ 
ing  for  them,  there  would  be  no  bliss  for  him  except  in  suffer¬ 
ing.  Jesus  would  not  have  been  happy  if  he  had  withheld 
himself  from  suffering  in  behalf  of  those  whom  he  loved; 
and  if  we  think  of  God  as  living  in  perfect  bliss  while  he  is 
not  bearing  in  love  the  burdens  of  his  sinful  creatures,  we  are 
not  thinking  of  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ.  His 
eternal  bliss  is  not  destroyed  by  his  perpetual  suffering  for 
sin,  for  it  is  redemptive  suffering,  and  it  is  as  a  Saviour  that 
he  is  bearing  it.  Since  there  is  sin,  Saviourhood  with  all  that 
it  involves  is  essential  to  the  joy  of  God. 

The  fact  of  Saviourhood  stands  in  harmonious  relation 
with  other  facts  that  we  know  concerning  God.  The  doc¬ 
trine  of  a  gracious  and  paternal  providence  finds  solid  founda¬ 
tion  in  this  disposition  of  God,  and  the  idea  of  a  serious  and 
solemn  moral  government  blends  harmoniously  with  that  of 
redemptive  love.  The  darkest  doctrine  of  sin  is  implied 
most  certainly  in  the  brightest  doctrine  of  salvation;  for  God’s 
estimate  of  sin  is  revealed  in  his  punishing,  but  still  more  in 
his  suffering  in  order  to  save.  The  cross  of  Christ  has  always 
been  the  great  revealer  of  the  dreadfulness  of  sin;  and  when 
it  appears  that  the  cross  of  Christ  is  the  cross  of  God,  the 
revelation  stands  as  ultimate.  Sin  burdens  the  heart  of  the 
Eternal  Goodness,  and  evokes  the  redemptive  self-sacrifice 
of  God.  The  fact  of  essential  Saviourhood,  too,  throws  its 
light  upon  the  entire  administration  of  the  world.  It  implies 
that  God’s  administration  of  the  life  of  the  human  race  is  a 
gracious  administration.  Since  he  is  Saviour,  there  is 
redemptive  significance  in  the  life  of  the  world.  Not  looking 
for  it,  Christians  have  not  always  found  it,  or  believed  in  it, 
but  it  is  there.  It  is  no  mystery  that  he  could  be  merciful  to 


SAVIOUR 


223 


men  before  the  death  of  Christ,  for  he  was  then  doing  in  him¬ 
self  the  saving  work  which  Christ  revealed ;  nor  is  it  a  mystery 
that  he  can  be  merciful  now  to  all  men  everywhere.  He  is 
merciful  everywhere  and  always  because  he  is  God:  Christ 
has  taught  us  that  this  is  so. 

It  is  true  that  we  do  not  know  how  the  Saviourhood,  dear 
to  God,  has  been  active  and  effective  toward  men  in  the  in¬ 
fantile  periods  of  the  race,  or  how  it  is  operative  now  where 
moral  and  religious  perception  is  very  dim  or  sadly  perverted. 
Of  course,  we  know  that  all  human  prayers,  to  whomsoever 
addressed,  have  been  heard  by  one  God,  and  by  no  other,  and 
that  all  religious  observances,  however  unworthy  of  God  or 
man,  have  gone  on  in  his  presence.  It  is  common  to  think 
that  he  regards  misdirected  prayers  and  degrading  observances 
with  righteous  indignation,  and  that  pagan  worshippers  can 
obtain  from  his  existence  no  benefit  in  connection  with  their 
religion.  But  when  we  know  God  through  Christ  we  know 
that  a  Saviour's  heart  has  always  heard  the  prayers  of  men. 
Humanity,  frail  as  well  as  sinful,  has  always  been  embraced 
in  a  redemptive  affection.  In  a  good  being,  even  righteous 
indignation  is  always  attended  by  compassion  and  desire  to 
help.  So  we  may  be  sure  that  the  misdirection  of  prayers 
does  not  shut  out  the  sins  of  humanity  from  God's  merciful 
consideration,  and  that  in  some  manner  his  saving  impulse 
has  found  its  way  into  all  human  life.  We  are  unable  to 
think  of  any  state  or  stage  of  humanity  as  lying  outside 
the  realm  of  his  Saviourhood.  What  Christ  has  taught  us  is 
that  in  all  ages  and  all  worlds  God  is  Saviour,  bearing  the  sins 
of  the  universe,  and  devoted  to  the  producing  of  goodness 
where  there  is  sin. 

It  was  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ  to  express  the  Saviourhood 
of  God,  by  living  it  out  in  a  human  career  of  life  and  death, 
in  order  that  men  might  know  it,  trust  it,  and  be  saved.  It 
was  in  this  character,  as  revealer  and  bringer  of  God's  salva¬ 
tion,  that  Jesus  was  found  adorable  by  the  early  church. 
Paul  adored  the  exalted  Christ,  not  because  of  supernatural 


224 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


signs  in  the  visible  world,  but  because  in  his  face  he  saw  the 
glory  of  redeeming  love.  Here  he  beheld  the  genuine  super¬ 
natural  and  divine.  In  this  it  is  our  privilege  to  follow  Paul. 
We,  too,  know  that  God  was  in  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus, 
not  so  much  because  of  miraculous  signs  or  special  declara¬ 
tions,  as  because  in  him  we  discover  and  meet  the  actual  God 
our  Saviour.  Like  the  early  church  we  find  God  in  Christ, 
and  therefore  we  are  sure  that  he  is  there.  The  truest  spirit¬ 
ual  likeness  of  God  that  was  ever  seen  by  human  eyes  or 
hearts  is  before  us  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  Saviour- 
hood  is  the  brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express  image  of 
his  person.  This  inward  light  of  God  shines  out  through 
Jesus,  and  without  this  no  external  certifications  of  divinity 
could  lead  us  to  adore  him.  We  should  mistake,  and  depend 
upon  inferior  evidence,  if  we  rested  our  recognition  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ  upon  anything  more  external  than  charac¬ 
teristic  work.  It  is  in  the  holy  Saviourhood  of  Jesus  that 
God  shines  forth.  The  mystery  of  God  in  Christ  is  not  a  phys¬ 
ical  one,  as  of  birth,  or  a  metaphysical,  as  of  the  blending  of 
natures :  it  is  a  spiritual  mystery.  The  wonder  is  that  in  the 
human  Jesus  the  Saviour  God  was  so  revealingly  expressed, 
and  the  divine  heart  and  will  went  forth  so  powerfully  in 
characteristic  action.  The  Saviourhood  revealed  in  Jesus’ 
holiness,  love,  sin-bearing  and  transforming  power  is  no 
other  than  the  Saviourhood  of  God,  and  in  the  unique  Saviour¬ 
hood  we  find  the  unique  divinity.  The  divine  in  Jesus  was 
the  God  who  in  him  was  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself. 
In  him,  for  bodily  manifestation,  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead. 

In  this  direction,  and  not  in  the  opposite,  did  the  reasoning 
of  the  early  faith  proceed.  The  Church  did  not  infer  the 
divineness  of  the  salvation  from  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour,  as 
modern  Christians  often  think  that  they  must  do :  it  inferred 
the  divinity  of  the  Saviour  from  the  divineness  of  the  salvation. 
Neither  did  it  argue  that  God  must  be  found  in  Jesus  because 
he  is  there:  it  inferred  that  God  is  in  Jesus  because  he  is 
there  so  gloriously  found.  We  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ: 


SAVIOUR 


225 


they  beheld  it.  We  have  fallen  back  on  intellectual  methods : 
they  built  on  spiritual  experience.  We  have  to  own  that  the 
early  method  was  in  better  keeping  with  the  nature  of  the 
subject  than  the  later.  We  may  argue  on  metaphysical 
grounds  that  God  is  in  Christ,  and  we  may  know  the  same  on 
practical  religious  grounds;  and  the  latter  is  the  more  appro¬ 
priate  way  of  knowing  such  truth  as  we  are  dealing  with. 
For  good  cause  Jesus  Christ  has  been  adored  in  all  human 
ages  as  the  human  manifestation  of  God.  In  him  God  is  at 
hand  for  us  men,  bringing  his  whole  self  near  to  us.  He  is 
God’s  way  to  us  and  our  way  to  God.  When  a  sinful  soul 
finds  God  in  Christ,  winning,  condemning,  loving,  pardoning, 
transforming,  he  is  entering  into  the  true  evangelical  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  person  of  Jesus.  Thus  so  far  as  any  key  is  in 
our  hands,  Saviourhood  is  the  key  to  the  mystery  of  the  person 
of  Christ.  Doctrinal  statements  have  sought  to  solve  the 
mystery;  but  we  should  deceive  ourselves  if  we  were  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  any  doctrinal  explanation  has  ever  made  the  matter 
plain,  and  certainly  the  explanations  have  often  called  us 
away  from  the  spiritual  to  the  metaphysical  interest.  Lan¬ 
guage  easily  becomes  too  clear,  analysis  is  too  definite,  and 
the  mystery  eludes  us.  Our  hope  is  rather  in  large  and 
mystical  views  of  the  most  vital  of  experiences.  It  is  God 
as  a  living  and  loving  Spirit  that  Christ  makes  known,  and  it 
is  in  the  gracious  work  for  men  that  we  behold  him.  When 
we  look  at  Jesus  we  remember  that  human  nature  was  created 
receptive  of  God,  and  can  receive  him  into  itself  in  any 
degree  of  fulness  that  he  may  will,  but  that  we  shall  never 
know  in  detail  the  manner  of  his  indwelling;  and  we  perceive 
that  in  Jesus,  for  the  good  of  men,  God  is  present  in  such 
fulness  as  we  find  nowhere  else,  so  that  he  stands  revealed  as 
the  God  that  he  really  is.  Not  by  analysis,  but  by  discern¬ 
ment  of  God,  may  we  hope  to  gain  some  resolution  of  the 
mystery  of  the  person  of  Christ. 

Not  in  Jesus  alone  is  the  Christian  expression  of  God  as 
Saviour  found,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit  also.  Our  conception  of 


226 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


God  as  Saviour  would  not  be  complete,  or  even  Christian,  if 
it  did  not  recognize  that  gracious  and  powerful  indwelling 
which  the  early  Church  celebrated  with  the  deepest  reverence 
and  joy.  He  who  in  Jesus  came  seeking  to  save  prosecutes 
his  endeavour  in  the  Spirit  who  bears  the  divine  message  and 
puts  forth  the  divine  power  within  the  living  soul.  This 
Spirit  is  himself,  God  within.  It  is  thus  that  the  divine 
Saviour  carries  his  desired  work  to  actual  effect  in  the  indi¬ 
vidual  and  in  the  race.  The  work  of  the  Spirit  brings  in  all 
holy  renewing  influence,  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  consists  in  all 
that  belongs  to  worthy  character  and  life,  and  it  is  in  the 
production  of  such  character  and  life  that  salvation  consists. 
It  is  an  eihical  salvation,  as  the  salvation  of  such  a  God  must 
be.  Rightly  is  the  Spirit  who  fulfils  it  called  the  Holy  Spirit, 
for  it  is  a  holy  ethical  work,  placing  good  where  evil  was,  in 
the  entire  life  of  man.  God,  through  Christ,  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  is  normalizing  men,  bringing  his  children  to  the  proper 
life  and  character  of  sons.  The  work  of  Christ  and  the 
Spirit  has  its  natural  place  in  the  order  of  the  world,  since 
God’s  Saviourhood  is  a  natural  and  appropriate  part  of  his 
relation  to  his  human  creatures. 

The  Christian  doctrine  proclaims  Saviourhood  in  God,  and 
declares  it  to  be  an  essential  fact  in  his  nature.  Of  necessity 
therefore  it  proclaims  that  he  is  eternally  a  Saviour.  He 
changes  never.  In  the  light  of  Christ  we  perceive  that  he 
stands  toward  his  universe  the  same  from  everlasting  to  ever¬ 
lasting,  a  hater  of  sin  and  a  holy  helper  of  his  creatures. 
When  we  see  the  Saviourhood  located  so  to  speak  in  his  very 
self,  we  see  that  it  can  be  no  function  of  a  passing  period,  but 
abides  forever.  When  we  discern  him  thus  in  the  Christian 
light,  we  wonder  whether  he  will  ever  perfectly  accomplish 
the  desire  of  heart.  We  long  to  know  whether,  as  we  have 
supposed,  there  are  causes  in  his  universe  from  which  there 
can  come  disappointment  to  the  infinite  love,  or  whether 
Saviourhood  will  perfectly  have  its  way  in  the  abolishment 
of  sin  and  the  bringing  of  all  souls  to  their  worthy  destiny. 


TRINITY 


227 


This  question  is  always  current  in  the  world  of  thoughtful 
men.  Often  it  is  thought  to  have  been  decided,  by  revela¬ 
tion,  or  by  reason,  or  by  unconquerable  moral  convictions, 
but  it  opens  itself  again,  and  we  cannot  long  neglect  it. 

As  free  children  of  God  we  certainly  are  not  forbidden  to 
entertain  the  question  of  final  destinies,  but  much  as  it  has 
been  discussed  we  do  not  find  ourselves  in  a  position  to  dog¬ 
matize  upon  it.  The  problem  has  been  both  enlarged  and 
altered  for  us  by  our  enlarged  acquaintance  with  mankind, 
and  by  the  clarifying  and  exalting  of  our  conceptions  of  God. 
But  in  the  relation  between  God  and  human  life  there  are 
some  essential  elements  that  we  do  not  fully  understand. 
Sometimes  it  seems  beyond  doubt  that  God  in  his  marvellous 
gift  of  freedom  has  bestowed  upon  man  the  power  to  wreck 
himself  beyond  recovery;  and  sometimes  again  we  are  scarcely 
able  to  doubt  that  the  faithful  Creator  has  kept  in  his  own 
good  hands  the  ultimate  spiritual  power  over  the  destiny  of 
his  creation.  Direct  evidence  as  to  the  lodgment  of  such 
final  control  we  do  not  possess.  The  breadth  of  our  hope  is 
due  to  what  we  know  of  God,  and  the  depth  of  our  fear  to 
what  we  know  of  man.  The  human  world  looks  dark  with 
fear,  and  the  divine  reality  bright  with  hope.  It  is  natural 
and  right  that  such  hope  should  gradually  rise  above  such 
fear;  but  the  hope,  if  it  is  worthy,  depends  not  upon  tan¬ 
gible  evidence,  but  upon  spiritual  faith  alone.  We  trust  the 
world  to  God,  who  is  at  once  the  righteous  Lord  and  the  ever¬ 
lasting  Saviour. 

7.  TRINITY 

Although  it  has  not  been  so  done,  there  appears  to  be  con¬ 
clusive  reason  for  considering  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  here, 
under  the  head  of  the  relations  of  God  with  men.  The  reason 
is  that  it  is  a  doctrine  of  religion.  Its  foundations  were  laid 
in  the  relation  that  God  sustains  to  men  as  their  Saviour,  and 
it  was  in  connection  with  the  divine  Saviourhood  that  the 
doctrine  received  its  later  development  and  has  had  its  age¬ 
long  vitality.  In  its  origin  and  history  the  doctrine  of  the 


228 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Trinity  has  its  vital  connections  almost  solely  with  the  doc¬ 
trine  and  experience  of  salvation.  In  fact,  it  might  fairly  be 
treated  as  a  development  of  the  doctrine  of  God  as  Saviour. 
If  we  are  to  give  it  its  right  position  as  a  religious  doctrine 
concerning  God,  it  is  necessary  to  view  it  in  the  region  where 
it  arose  and  has  had  its  significance  and  efficiency. 

The  doctrine  may  be  approached  through  one  of  the  earliest 
expressions  that  suggest  it.  At  the  end  of  his  second  letter 
to  the  Corinthians  Paul  wrote,  “The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  be  with  you  all”  (2  Cor.  xiii.  14). 

The  genuineness  of  this  prayer  in  the  apostle^s  soul  is  be¬ 
yond  question.  He  was  speaking  out  of  experience,  and  in¬ 
voking  the  gifts  that  were  characteristic  of  the  Christian  life. 
His  prayer  unfolded  and  interpreted  the  experience  that  he 
and  his  readers  had  in  Christ.  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  in  whose  cross  he  gloried  and  whose  heavenly  gifts 
were  making  all  things  new,  had  opened  to  him  and  them  the 
infinite  riches  of  the  love  of  God,  and  introduced  them  to  the 
unspeakably  precious  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This 
indeed  was  the  Christian  experience — Christ  bringing  home 
to  his  people  God’s  love  and  the  Spirit’s  fellowship;  and  Paul 
was  praying  for  his  readers  that  in  them  this  work  of  blessing 
might  go  on.  In  this  prayer  he  invoked  Christianity  upon 
them.  It  is  all  here,  and  here  is  the  supreme  work  of  God  in 
religion.  The  grace  that  is  in  Christ  does  bring  to  glorious 
effect  in  men  the  love  of  God  and  the  communion  of  the  Spirit, 
and  the  best  good  of  life  is  the  result.  This,  too,  is  the  char¬ 
acteristic  order  of  Christianity:  first  Christ  the  revealer,  then 
God  revealed  in  his  love,  then  the  Spirit, whose  home  is  the  soul. 

This  prayer,  so  truly  Christian,  seems  certainly  to  have 
sprung  from  experience.  The  light  that  it  gives  upon 
Christian  truth  comes  to  us  as  a  revelation  through  life.  It 
is  to  be  noticed  how  perfectly  informal  it  is.  It  has  none  of 
the  qualities  of  a  doctrinal  formula,  and  it  does  not  seem  to 
imply  any  formula  of  the  Trinity  present  in  the  author’s 


TRINITY 


229 


mind.  It  does  not  appear  to  be  based  upon  what  we  call 
the  baptismal  formula,  “  Baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit”  (Mt.  xxviii. 
19).  The  names  do  not  correspond,  for  instead  of  the  Father 
we  here  have  God,  and  instead  of  the  Son  we  have  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Nor  does  the  order  correspond,  for  here  the 
Second  of  the  baptismal  formula  stands  first,  and  the  First 
stands  second.  Moreover,  the  titles  that  are  given  to  the 
Second  instead  of  Son — namely,  Jesus,  Christ  and  Lord — are 
not  derived  from  relations  in  the  Godhead,  but  all  come  from 
his  human  history  and  relations.  If  the  baptismal  formula, 
bearing  the  Master’s  authority,  had  been  present  as  a  trini¬ 
tarian  norm  of  new  doctrine  in  the  apostle’s  mind,  it  is  diffi¬ 
cult  to  see  how  his  thought  and  language  could  have  been  so 
flexible  and  variant  from  the  standard.  The  free  form  and 
experimental  character  of  this  epoch-making  benediction  make 
us  sure  that  it  sprang  forth  original  from  the  apostle’s  mind, 
as  a  prayer  that  amounted  to  an  epitome  of  the  Christian 
faith.  Thus  he  had  learned  the  Christian  grace,  and  thus 
he  now  invoked  it. 

Here,  we  scarcely  need  to  say,  there  are  recalled  three  rela¬ 
tions  of  God  to  men — revealing,  revealed  and  abiding.  The 
relations  are  not  abstract  but  practical:  in  these  three  ways 
writer  and  readers  were  having  to  do  with  God.  They  had 
to  do  with  Christ  revealing  God,  with  God  as  Christ  revealed 
him,  and  with  God  as  Christ  had  brought  them  home  to  him. 
These  three  were  not  only  relations  of  one  and  the  same  God, 
but  they  were  relations  that  concerned  the  saving  of  men,  and 
were  known  through  the  experience  of  salvation.  Grace  in 
Christ,  love  in  God,  communion  of  the  Spirit — in  these  salva¬ 
tion  dwelt,  and  one  Saviour  was  in  them  all. 

This  benediction  fairly  represents  the  early  Christian 
records,  for  Christ,  God  and  the  Spirit  appear  in  essentially 
the  same  light  throughout.  The  names  applied  to  them  are 
indeed  varied  in  many  ways.  The  names  Father  and  Son 
are  freely  used.  Father  is  a  frequent  name  for  God,  and  he 
is  recorded  as  Father  both  to  Christ  and  to  men.  Jesus, 


230 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


known  from  his  lifetime  as  the  Son  of  God,  is  now  adored, 
especially  in  PauFs  enraptured  vision,  as  the  Son  of  God  in 
the  heavenly  glory.  The  divine  Spirit  indwelling  and  sanc¬ 
tifying  is  the  joy  of  the  Church.  But  in  all  its  variety  the 
vision  of  God  is  practical.  All  thought  of  Father,  Son  and 
Spirit  moves  within  the  circle  of  salvation.  It  is  in  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  salvation  that  Christians  know  the  Father  and  the 
Spirit,  and  that  experience  has  been  entered  through  fellow¬ 
ship  with  the  Son.  Very  significant  is  the  fact  that  the  name 
given  to  the  Spirit  contains  the  adjective  holy — the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  Spirit  existing  in  the  eternal  Godhead  no  one 
would  ever  dream  of  calling  holy:  that  epithet  requires  the 
atmosphere  of  an  unholy  world  to  be  born  in.  It  is  a  name 
due  to  the  experience  of  sin.  Throughout  the  Epistles  Christ 
is  Lord  in  heavenly  glory  and  in  present  life,  God  is  Father  to 
Christ  and  to  men,  and  the  Spirit  is  the  cleansing  and  com¬ 
forting  God  within.  These  three  stand  forth  as  one  in  redemp¬ 
tive  work  and  grace  toward  men.  There  is  no  mystery  about 
their  oneness,  and  no  attempt  to  show  that  there  are  three 
in  one,  or  even  a  statement  that  the  three  are  one.  The 
word  Trinity  is  never  used,  and  there  is  no  indication  that  the 
idea  of  Trinity  had  taken  form.  It  has  long  been  a  common 
practice  to  read  the  New  Testament  as  if  the  ideas  of  a  later 
age  upon  this  subject  were  in  it,  but  they  are  not.  In  the 
days  of  the  apostles  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  yet  to  be 
created.  But  the  materials  for  it  were  already  there,  and 
the  occasion  for  the  growth  of  the  doctrine  was  sure  to  arise. 
The  Christian  people  were  adoring  God,  and  Christ,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  not  at  first  in  identical  manner,  yet  really,  and 
from  the  heart.  Of  course,  therefore,  the  time  would  come 
when  this  threefold  adoration  must  be  explained  and  justified. 
Not  less  certainly  would  the  time  come  when  so  familiar  and 
heartfelt  a  reality  as  this  threefold  adoration  must  take  effect 
upon  the  doctrinal  structure  of  Christian  thought. 

When  that  time  came,  after  the  lapse  of  three  or  four  cen¬ 
turies,  there  was  wrought  out  a  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which 


TRINITY 


231 


became,  after  a  period  of  conflict,  the  accepted  belief  of  the 
Christian  people.  This  historic  doctrine  differed  widely  from 
the  simplicity  of  the  early  faith.  It  moved  in  a  new  region, 
it  employed  new  methods,  and  it  required  a  new  kind  of 
belief,  for  it  was  now  a  metaphysical  doctrine  concerning 
the  interior  nature  and  life  of  God.  But  it  must  not  be  forgot¬ 
ten  that  in  the  framing  of  this  deep  doctrine  the  aim  was  still 
practical.  Doubtless  the  love  of  dialectical  discussion  grew 
keen  about  it,  but  in  the  forming  of  the  doctrine  there  was  no 
seeking  of  abstractions  for  their  own  sake.  Even  in  its  most 
difficult  forms  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  always  held  true 
rank  as  a  doctrine  of  religion.  Its  existence  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  Church  was  still  endeavouring  to  understand  and 
justify  her  Christian  experience.  It  is  too  often  forgotten, 
but  it  is  true,  that  the  motive  in  the  construction  of  the  his¬ 
torical  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  the  desire  of  the  Church  to 
justify  her  adoration  of  her  Saviour,  and  to  ground  his  salva¬ 
tion  in  the  eternal  reality  of  God.  The  resulting  doctrine 
carried  its  positive  affirmations  far  into  the  mystery  of  the 
Godhead,  and  often  appeared  to  lose  connection  with  human 
interests,  but  the  separation  was  only  apparent.  In  the 
entire  endeavour  the  Church  was  seeking  eternal  foundations 
for  her  most  precious  faith. 

In  theological  construction  the  starting-point  in  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Trinity  is  usually  the  Father,  but  in  history  the 
starting-point  was  the  Son.  Christ,  glorious  with  the  light  of 
divine  love  and  holiness,  known  on  earth  and  adored  in 
heaven  as  Son  of  God,  was  so  full  of  grace  and  truth  that  men 
not  only  learned  the  Father  from  him  but  beheld  the  Father 
in  him.  How  did  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwell  thus  in 
him,  to  be  discovered  there  by  men?  and  by  what  endow¬ 
ment  could  he  be  the  bringer  of  very  God  to  men  for  their 
salvation  ?  The  answer  was  that  God  was  in  him  really,  and 
not  in  some  secondary  sense :  the  very  essence  of  the  Godhead 
was  a  constituent  of  his  personality.  Just  as  truly  as  human 
nature  was  in  him,  so  truly  was  divine.  Divine  nature  and 
human  were  not  thought  to  be  alike,  but  both  were  equally  in 


232 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Jesus.  Not  indeed,  the  doctrine  said,  that  incarnation  into 
humanity  is  possible  to  God  absolute  and  unconditioned.  Hu¬ 
manity  could  not  contain  him,  nor  would  the  position  of  one  in¬ 
carnate  be  congruous  with  his  relations  or  his  nature.  But 
there  exists  forever  in  the  Godhead  a  Son,  identified  with  the 
Word  that  was  declared  to  have  become  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us.  His  relation  to  the  Father  is  somewhat  analogous 
to  that  of  man,  and  he  is  in  some  sense  akin  to  humanity, 
which  was  created  in  his  likeness.  The  Son  is  incarnable, 
and  he  has  entered  into  closest  union  with  human  nature  in 
the  person  of  Jesus.  Therefore  it  is  that  Jesus  is  inherently 
worthy  to  receive  such  honour  as  the  Church  gives  him,  and 
that  his  salvation  is  the  very  salvation  of  God.  He  is  worthy 
to  be  adored,  and  mighty  to  save,  because  God  the  Son  is 
an  element  in  the  constitution  of  his  person.  Thus  the 
Christian  faith  is  justified,  and  an  eternal  foundation  is 
placed  underneath  the  Christian  experience. 

From  the  starting-point  in  the  Son,  interpretative  thought 
reached  out  in  both  directions.  On  the  one  hand  it  made  its 
affirmations  concerning  the  Father.  As  the  titles  indicate, 
the  Father  was  recognized  as  the  source  of  the  Son,  though 
in  a  manner  higher  than  that  of  creation.  The  Son  was  un¬ 
created,  of  the  Father’s  very  self,  mysteriously  and  eternally 
generated  from  his  being.  The  Father  was  God  original,  eter¬ 
nally  self-manifesting  through  the  Son  alone,  expressed  by  the 
Son  in  humanity.  In  the  Father  first  was  all  that  belongs  to 
divine  being,  and  all  that  was  brought  by  the  Son  to  men. 
Thus  the  salvation  that  had  been  received  through  Christ  was 
grounded  beyond  Christ,  and  beyond  the  eternal  Son,  in  God 
the  Father,  source  of  all.  And  on  the  other  hand  interpre¬ 
tative  thought  took  hold  upon  the  divine  Spirit,  the  third 
known  form  of  Godhead.  Experience  of  indwelling  God 
was  as  real  as  evidence  of  incarnate  God.  The  Spirit,  the 
abiding  agent  in  salvation,  must  be  as  divine  as  the  Father, 
and  it  was  only  natural  that  the  Spirit  should  be  recognized 
within  the  Godhead,  as  the  Son  was.  It  is  true  that  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Godhead  was  never  so  clearly  ex- 


TRINITY 


233 


pounded  as  that  of  the  Son.  for  it  was  not  a  relation  that 
was  capable  of  such  exposition ;  and  yet  the  Spirit  was  firmly 
held  to  be  the  Third  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the 
eternal  Being.  The  forthcoming  God  in  Christ  corresponded 
to  one  eternal  distinction  in  the  Godhead,  and  the  abiding 
and  restoring  God  the  Spirit  corresponded  to  another.  Thus 
the  daily  experience  of  the  Christian  life,  as  well  as  the  work 
of  grace  in  Christ,  was  grounded  in  eternal  reality. 

The  doctrine  that  was  thus  formed  retained  the  name  that 
had  been  growing  into  use,  and  was  called  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  But  the  name  was  never  a  true  one.  That  which 
was  adopted  in  the  fifth  century  was  not  a  doctrine  of  Trinity, 
but  of  Triunity.  It  was  not  merely  the  existence  of  the 
eternal  Three  that  was  affirmed:  it  was  affirmed  that  the 
Three  eternally  constituted  the  unity  of  God.  In  the  one 
God  there  existed  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  which  three  were 
declared  necessary  to  the  making  up  of  that  unity  wherein 
God  is  forever  perfect.  It  is  plain  that  in  such  a  doctrine  the 
element  of  unity  was  as  essential  as  that  of  trinity:  indeed,  it 
was  the  element  of  unity  alone  that  gave  it  standing  as  a 
Christian  doctrine.  Trinity  without  unity  would  have  been 
explicit  tri theism,  which  would  have  been  polytheism;  and 
by  no  possibility  could  plain  tritheism  have  been  admitted 
among  the  ideas  of  Christianity.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
historic  doctrine  absolutely  repudiated  all  charges  of  trithe¬ 
ism,  and  made  the  strongest  affirmation  of  the  unity  of  the  God 
in  whom  trinity  inhered.  How  much  truer  to  fact  it  would 
have  been  if  the  accepted  doctrine  had  been  called  the  doctrine 
of  Triunity,  and  how  many  misunderstandings  and  confusions 
might  thus  have  been  avoided  I  One  practical  testimony  to  the 
propriety  of  such  nomenclature  is  at  hand.  Agelong  though 
the  use  of  the  word  Trinity  has  been,  no  one  has  ever  ventured 
to  be  so  consistent  in  the  use  of  terms  as  to  speak  of  the  trine 
God.  But  adoration  of  the  triune  God  has  been  perpetual. 

It  is  evident  that  there  must  be  diflSculty  in  defining  and 
defending  a  doctrine  of  genuine  triunity  in  God,  and  the 


234 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


difficulty  has  never  been  unfelt.  There  is  no  difficulty  about 
preserving  the  threeness,  when  once  it  has  been  admitted  to 
thought,  but  there  is  great  difficulty  in  preserving  along  with 
it  the  unity.  The  danger  of  tritheism  is  very  great,  and 
probably  at  all  stages  of  the  history  the  popular  belief  in  the 
Trinity  has  approached  nearer  to  a  tritheistic  belief  than  the 
teachers  and  preachers  knew.  From  the  early  days  of  the 
doctrine  until  now,  the  Three  in  the  Godhead  have  been 
called  Persons,  the  doctrine  affirming  three  Persons  in  one 
God.  The  name  was  helpful  in  the  ancient  time  when  it 
bore  a  looser  and  more  flexible  meaning;  but  at  present, 
amid  the  more  clear-cut  conceptions  of  personality  that  are 
current  now,  to  speak  and  sing  of  ‘‘God  in  three  Persons’* 
is  to  give  distinct  encouragement  to  tritheistic  belief.  It 
must  be  confessed  that  there  has  been  too  much  in  the 
history  of  Christian  teaching  to  encourage  such  belief.  The 
Three  have  often  been  represented  as  consulting  together, 
sometimes  in  “the  council-chamber  of  the  Trinity,**  as  making 
mutual  covenants  among  themselves,  and  as  exerting  influ¬ 
ence  upon  one  another,  in  ways  that  necessarily  implied 
separate  wills  and  sometimes  involved  differences  in  char¬ 
acter.  When  a  covenant  is  posited  between  members  of  the 
Trinity,  or  one  exerts  influence  upon  another  with  reference 
to  the  salvation  of  men,  it  is  impossible  to  keep  a  clear  and 
vital  sense  of  the  unity  of  God.  Nor  has  the  doctrine  been 
used  in  such  a  manner  as  to  free  it  from  its  difficulties.  For 
ages  this  most  abstract  of  the  doctrines  has  been  held  as  the 
test  of  orthodoxy,  and  this  has  inevitably  led  to  a  preciseness 
in  defining  that  is  not  justified  by  the  nature  of  the  subject. 
Moreover,  since  the  unity  of  God  is  naturally  easier  to 
hold  and  the  trinity  more  difficult,  there  has  been  a  tendency 
to  insist  more  upon  the  threeness  than  upon  the  oneness, 
lest  it  should  be  less  esteemed  than  it  deserves.  There  has 
been  little  stress  placed  upon  the  unity  of  God,  in  comparison 
with  the  labour  that  has  been  given  to  defence  and  exposition 
of  the  Trinity. 

Nevertheless  no  remembrance  of  the  difficulties  in  theory  or 


TRINITY 


235 


in  practice  should  be  allowed  to  make  us  unmindful  of  the 
great  religious  significance  of  the  doctrine.  Though  specu¬ 
lation  has  often  lost  itself  in  the  mystery  of  God,  the  doctrine 
has  had  abundant  vitality  in  the  region  of  God’s  relations 
with  men  and  their  salvation.  It  has  been  held  as  the  indis¬ 
pensable  and  sufficient  key  for  explaining  the  unique  divine¬ 
ness  of  all  that  pertains  to  Jesus  Christ  in  his  person,  his 
work  and  his  salvation.  Despite  its  mysteriousness,  it  has 
made  God  seem  more  intelligible  to  men,  and  has  helped  to 
bring  him  nearer  to  the  hearts  of  his  children.  By  its  declara¬ 
tion  of  the  real  entrance  of  God  into  humanity  and  the  taking 
of  manhood  up  into  God,  it  has  placed  a  crown  of  glory  upon 
human  nature,  and  has  helped  in  giving  practical  effect  to 
the  dignity  and  freedom  of  man.  This  is  its  glory,  that  it 
has  stood  as  a  foundation  that  sustained  the  faith  of  ages  and 
supported  a  worthy  life. 

Accordingly  it  is  here  and  only  here,  in  the  field  of  divine- 
human  relations,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  been  a 
strongly  vital  doctrine.  It  has  been  a  vital  doctrine,  powerful 
even  when  perplexing,  tenacious  in  its  hold  upon  the  heart, 
in  so  far  as  it  served  as  a  means  of  understanding  the  gospel 
and  justifying  the  faith  in  which  is  salvation;  but  beyond  this 
field  it  has  not  been  the  prominent  element  in  theology  that 
we  might  expect  it  to  be.  Christian  theology  has  treated  it 
as  a  specialty  of  the  Christian  religion,  maintaining  that  the 
triunity  of  God,  though  groped  after  in  thought  by  the  nations 
of  the  world,  could  never  have  been  known  if  it  had  not  been 
for  the  Christian  revelation.  There  are  various  departments 
of  Christian  thought  in  which  it  has  no  place.  Natural  Theol¬ 
ogy  has  never  discovered  it.  In  our  Apologetics  and  general 
Theism  we  rejoice  that  we  can  claim  that  God  is  personal,  but 
we  are  satisfied  with  that,  and  do  not  undertake  to  show  that 
he  is  tripersonal.  The  doctrine  does  not  appear,  and  could 
not  well  be  made  use  of,  in  the  consideration  of  Omnipresence, 
Omniscience  or  Omnipotence,  of  Sovereignty,  Moral  Govern¬ 
ment  or  Providence.  It  has  usually  been  allowed  no  more 
than  a  remote  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  general 


236 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Fatherhood  of  God  towards  men.  It  bears  no  part  in  the 
doctrine  of  Holiness.  It  has  sometimes  been  offered  as  a 
means  of  showing  how  God  is  Love  eternally  in  himself,  apart 
from  all  relations  and  without  depending  upon  creation  for  an 
object  of  his  love.  But  the  idea  of  an  internally  social  God, 
having  within  himself  an  interchange  of  love,  has  not  very 
widely  commended  itself  as  reconcilable  with  an  intelligible 
unity;  for  if  we  think  of  two  as  loving  each  other,  we  must 
soon  find  it  hard  to  feel  that  they  are  one.  Triunity  has 
sometimes  been  proposed  as  a  key  to  the  understanding  of 
self-consciousness  in  God;  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  correspond¬ 
ing  to  subject,  object  and  their  unity,  which  are  thought  to  be 
facts  constituent  of  self-consciousness  in  man.  But  the  sug¬ 
gestion  has  not  proved  clear  and  vital  enough  to  establish 
for  itself  a  permanent  place  in  Christian  Theism,  and  probably 
has  no  better  future.  The  agency  of  the  eternal  Son  in  crea¬ 
tion,  suggested  by  what  is  said  of  the  Logos  in  Jn.  i.  3,  and 
by  similar  passages,  has  generally  been  formally  accepted 
on  the  authority  of  those  statements;  but  it  has  not  rendered 
the  doctrine  of  creation  more  intelligible  or  more  vital  than 
the  first  words  of  the  Bible  make  it.  Thus  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  absent  from  large  regions  of  Christian  thought. 
It  is  only  when  it  is  employed  as  an  interpretation  of  the 
Christian  experience  and  a  justification  of  the  Christian 
faith  on  the  ground  of  eternal  reality  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  stands  forth  as  a  doctrine  of  living  power.  This  is 
its  sphere  of  life;  and  no  sublimer  tribute  to  the  greatness  of 
salvation  could  be  paid  than  this,  that  the  very  conception 
of  God  was  reconsidered  and  reconstructed  to  establish  it 
upon  an  adequate  foundation. 

We  desire  to  know  what  view  of  God  with  reference 
to  Triunity  best  corresponds  at  the  present  time  to  the 
revelation  that  we  owe  to  Jesus  Christ.  We  can  easily 
ascertain  what  has  formerly  been  thought,  but  we  shall 
be  glad  if  we  can  discover  what  we  ought  now  to  think. 
On  this  subject  as  on  others  it  may  be  that  we  ought  to 


TRINITY 


237 


preserve  ancient  doctrine,  and  it  may  be  that  we  ought 
to  modify  it.  In  what  direction  does  the  Christian  light 
lead  us  now? 

One  thing  is  certain.  The  Christian  light  and  the  light  of 
modern  knowledge  agree  perfectly  in  leading  us  to  a  genuine 
and  unalterable  monotheism.  The  Hebrew  prophets  declared 
that  the  one  God  is  the  God  of  all,  and  Christianity  took  up 
their  proclamation  with  a  broader  sense  of  its  meaning. 
There  was  monotheistic  thought  in  the  world  outside  of  early 
Christianity,  but  it  was  in  the  spirit  of  religion  and  at  the 
same  time  of  growing  intelligence  that  Christianity  proclaimed 
the  soleness  and  universality  of  God.  With  the  Christian 
faith  all  polytheism,  even  though  it  be  no  more  than  tritheism, 
is  absolutely  inconsistent.  It  scarcely  needs  to  be  said  that 
to  the  same  monotheistic  belief  the  light  of  modern  knowledge 
leads.  The  universe  is  one,  and  God  is  one.  One  God,  one 
mind,  one  will — this  is  the  only  form  in  which  any  belief  in 
God  whatever  is  possible  in  the  world  as  we  know  it  now. 
Many  think,  indeed,  that  no  belief  in  God  at  all  is  possible  at 
present;  but  the  Christian  faith  rises  to  the  recognition  of  one 
mind  and  will,  adequate  to  the  operation  and  control  of  the 
entire  system  of  existence.  Thus  old  faith  and  new  knowl¬ 
edge  agree  that  by  the  existence  of  God  can  be  meant  nothing 
else  than  the  existence  of  a  single  mind,  with  one  all-embracing 
consciousness  and  a  single  will.  If  there  is  any  God,  he  is 
such  a  God  as  this.  For  this  we  argue  in  our  Apologetics, 
and  to  this  we  must  be  faithful  in  our  doctrine.  As  to  the 
personality  of  the  one  God,  as  we  have  said  already,  it  is 
the  perfection  of  that  personal  type  of  being  which  has  be¬ 
gun  to  be  developed  in  mankind.  He  is  the  complete  per¬ 
son,  in  whom  the  powers  that  are  essential  to  our  human 
personality  exist  in  perfection.  This  we  say,  although  how 
far  this  personal  description  of  God  after  the  likeness  of 
men  falls  short  of  the  reality  we  do  not  know.  Yet  the 
highest  that  we  do  know  is  that  God  is  personal ;  and  when 
we  have  said  this  we  have  said  that  in  the  modern  sense  of 
the  term  God  is  one  person,  and  not  more  than  one.  Of 


238 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


this  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  three  Persons  of  the 
Trinity  are  Persons  in  an  ancient  sense  of  the  word,  but 
not  in  the  modern  sense.  And  what  we  affirm  of  God  is 
that  the  one  divine  Person  sustains  one  all-comprehensive 
relation  to  all  existence  that  is  not  himself,  and  is  absolutely 
competent  to  the  fulfilling  of  that  relation  in  all  its  forms. 
This  is  monotheism,  and  this  is  the  only  possible  theism. 
In  early  Christianity  such  broad  monotheism  was  beginning 
to  be  proclaimed  as  a  conclusion  from  the  Christian  revela¬ 
tion:  it  is  now  affirmed  both  in  the  light  of  the  Christian 
revelation  and  as  a  necessity  of  all  theistic  thought. 

The  recognition  of  such  a  God — a  single  mind  and  will, 
competent  to  all  activities  that  the  universe  can  require — 
must  inevitably  modify  doctrines  that  were  formed  when  the 
conception  of  God  was  not  so  broad  and  simple.  The  compe¬ 
tence  of  the  one  mind  to  all  purposes,  of  the  one  heart  to  all 
needs,  and  of  the  one  will  to  all  works,  may  be  expected,  when 
once  accepted,  to  clarify  and  simplify  our  ideas  of  God’s 
operation  toward  his  creatures.  When  we  behold  one 
personal  Mind  adequate  to  all  works,  some  of  our  doctrines 
will  change  their  form.  What  might  thus  be  expected  is  in 
fact  coming  to  pass.  The  changes  in  modern  theology  are 
due  to  this  broadening  and  simplifying  of  the  thought  of 
God,  and  to  more  Christian  conceptions  of  his  character. 
What  is  taking  place  in  other  fields  of  doctrine  is  occurring 
also  with  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  existing 
tendency  has  not  yet  come  to  formulation,  but  the  movement 
is  going  on,  and  must  be  recognized  in  a  study  of  the 
doctrine  of  God.  The  modern  conception  of  God  is  provid¬ 
ing  in  other  forms  what  was  provided  in  the  days  of  a  different 
theism  by  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  Trinity  in  the  Godhead; 
which  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  the  Christian  Theism  of  the 
present  time  is  absorbing  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  into 
itself,  and  making  provision  for  its  beneficent  work  in  ways 
of  its  own.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  destroyed  but 
fulfilled  by  the  doctrine  of  God  which  is  succeeding  to  its 
place.  Without  the  necessity  of  differentiations  in  his 


TRINITY 


239 


Being,  the  one  divine  Mind  and  Will  is  capable  of  doing  all 
that  has  been  accounted  for  by  the  doctrine  of  Triunity. 

If  we  begin  to  confirm  this  statement  by  considering  the 
doctrine  of  the  Father,  there  is  but  little  that  needs  to  be  said. 
No  great  change  is  involved  in  the  taking  up  of  the  trinitarian 
doctrine  of  the  Father  into  the  general  doctrine  of  God. 
It  has  not  been  held  that  only  a  certain  part  or  element  in 
God  was  the  Father  in  the  Trinity,  or  that  there  was  need  of 
differentiation  within  the  Godhead  in  order  that  God  might 
be  adapted  to  that  which  the  name  Father  denotes.  In  the 
Trinity,  according  to  the  ancient  doctrine,  the  Father  is 
God  himself,  original,  complete,  unmodified,  possessed  of  all 
powers  and  qualities  that  can  be  affirmed  of  God.  The 
whole  God  is  there,  anterior,  in  our  way  of  speaking,  to  those 
differentiations  of  his  being  which  are  suited  to  the  works  of 
incarnation  and  indwelling.  According  to  the  doctrine,  the 
Son  and  the  Spirit  add  nothing  to  the  fulness  which  the 
Father  has  eternally  in  himself:  rather  are  they  expressions 
or  unfoldings  of  that  infinite  fulness.  If  we  could  set  forth 
all  that  the  historic  doctrine  attributes  to  the  Father,  we 
should  be  setting  forth  all  that  is  conceived  to  be  true  of  God ; 
and  the  doctrine  simply  affirms  that  his  fulness  is  developed 
as  it  were,  or  brought  into  relations  and  modes  of  action,  in 
the  Son  and  the  Spirit.  So  if  we  say,  in  the  manner  of  more 
modern  thought,  that  God  himself  is  the  Father,  and  is  able 
to  do  directly  all  that  the  Father  has  been  declared  to  do,  we 
are  not  departing  from  the  ancient  doctrine,  but  are  only 
repeating  its  testimony.  There  is  no  need  to  show  by  what 
changes  of  thought  the  doctrine  of  the  Father  in  the  Trinity 
is  taken  up  into  the  general  doctrine  of  God,  for  in  this  instance 
there  scarcely  are  changes.  The  two  conceptions  are  already 
one. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  rather  of  the  Triunity,  was 
formed,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  not  for  explanation  of 
God,  or  for  the  establishment  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Father, 


240 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


but  for  interpretation  of  Christ  and  vindication  of  the  faith 
in  him.  Triunity  in  God  was  received  as  the  ground  of  the 
reverence  which  the  Church  felt  herself  justified  in  giving,  and 
constrained  to  give,  to  her  exalted  Saviour.  The  underlying 
question  was  a  practical  one.  Experience  bore  witness  that 
God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself. 
Christ’s  work  was  God’s  work,  his  Saviourhood  the  very 
Saviourhood  of  God.  The  glory  of  Jesus  as  men  beheld 
him,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  was  divine  glory,  and  was  as  the 
glory  of  one  only-begotten  from  a  Father  (Jn.  i.  14).  He 
was  known  as  the  forthshining  of  God’s  glory  and  the  express 
image  of  his  substance  (Heb.  i.  3) :  in  him  dwelt  all  the  ful¬ 
ness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  (Col.  ii.  9),  and  he  that  had  seen 
him  had  seen  the  Father  (Jn.  xiv.  9).  God,  in  fact,  was 
manifested  through  him  in  nobler  and  dearer  characters 
than  had  been  known  before,  and  in  Jesus  men  found  them¬ 
selves  actually  becoming  acquainted  with  him.  Thus  real 
and  definite  was  the  evidence  of  God  in  Christ  to  the  Christian 
heart.  But  how  was  this  possible  ?  How  came  God  to  be 
so  really  in  Jesus  as  the  Christians  were  finding  him  to  be  ? 
For  Jesus  was  human,  too,  born  of  a  woman,  brother  to  man, 
subject  to  death.  It  was  as  a  man  living  among  men  that  he 
had  been  known,  and  it  was  in  his  human  life  that  God  had 
been  so  marvellously  revealed. 

The  Church  accepted  the  true  answer,  to  the  effect  that 
both  elements  were  real,  the  divine  and  the  human,  and 
neither  was  a  fiction.  God  was  actually  in  and  with  the 
human  nature,  and  was  revealed  where  men  had  read  the 
revelation.  At  the  same  time  Jesus  was  really  and  truly 
human,  not  a  mere  shadow  or  seeming  of  humanity,  as  some 
Christians  felt  that  reverence  for  his  divinity  required  them 
to  believe.  The  Church  was  right  in  discerning  in  him  the 
presence  of  divine  and  human,  God  and  man,  both  manifest 
in  a  single  person.  The  evidence  that  both  are  there  is  found 
not  so  much  by  reasoning  or  analysis,  or  in  special  claims 
concerning  him  or  declarations  as  to  what  he  is,  as  in  the 
experimental  fact  that  in  all  Christian  ages  God  and  man 


TRINITY 


241 


have  both  been  discovered  in  him.  In  him  manhood  is 
glorified,  and  in  him  God  revealed  shines  forth,  visible  as 
nowhere  else  in  the  beauty  of  love  and  holiness. 

Explanation  of  this  glorious  revealing  mystery  was  under¬ 
taken  under  the  silent  influence  of  two  presuppositions,  apart 
from  which  the  resulting  belief  cannot  be  justly  estimated. 
One  was  that  the  personality  of  Jesus  was  to  be  understood  by 
the  aid  of  analysis,  searching  into  his  being  and  discerning  the 
elements  of  which  it  was  composed.  The  other  was  that  the 
essence  of  divine  nature  and  of  human  are  profoundly  unlike 
each  other.  Under  the  influence  of  these  ideas  two  differing 
natures  were  believed  to  be  in  the  one  person  Jesus;  and 
this  meant  that  there  were  present  in  him  the  two  spiritual 
substances  or  essences  in  which  the  two  natures  were  held 
to  consist.  The  method  of  analysis  resulted  thus.  As  for 
definition  of  these  two  natures,  the  essence  of  his  humanity 
needed  not  to  be  specially  defined;  for  however  mysterious 
it  may  be,  human  nature  is  so  familiar  that  it  was  enough  to 
describe  him  as  possessing  the  humanity  that  is  common  to 
the  race.  But  the  divine  element  needed  more  defining. 
It  was  not  the  Father,  but  the  eternal  Son,  or  the  Word 
expressive  and  revelatory,  that  was  adapted  to  entrance  into 
humanity  and  identification  with  a  human  person.  He  en¬ 
tered  into  the  person  Jesus,  or  became  united  in  him  with 
human  nature,  and  thus  brought  the  substance  of  Deity  to 
coexist  in  him  with  the  substance  of  humanity.  Of  course 
so  materialistic  a  word  as  substance  does  partial  injustice 
to  the  thought;  but  the  teaching  was  that  the  spiritual  re¬ 
ality  by  virtue  of  which  God  is  God  and  the  spiritual  reality 
by  virtue  of  which  man  is  man  were  present,  and  united,  in 
Jesus.  How  the  two  natures  blended,  being  so  profoundly 
unlike,  no  one  could  tell;  but  the  mystery  of  the  person  was 
accepted  as  a  part  of  the  mystery  of  God,  and  has  enhanced 
rather  than  diminished  the  reverence  that  was  given  to  Christ. 

One  effect  of  modern  study  has  been  to  give  new  light 
upon  these  two  presuppositions.  The  first  of  them  re- 


242 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


lates  to  the  manner  in  which  personality  is  to  be  searched 
out  and  understood,  and  leads,  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  to  rehance 
upon  analysis  of  the  personal  constitution.  But  no  one  now 
seeks  to  understand  personality  by  seeking  to  know  of  what 
stuff  or  substance  it  is  composed.  No  one  knows,  so 
as  to  describe  or  define  it,  anything  about  that  which  is 
the  substratum  of  personality,  the  material,  so  to  speak,  in 
which  the  personal  life  is  grounded.  It  is  perceived  that 
personality  is  not  to  be  understood  by  analysis  of  what  it 
consists  in.  We  know  nothing  about  the  essence  of  spiritual 
being,  human  or  divine,  and  cannot  depend  upon  definitions 
that  are  made  in  terms  of  it.  There  is  a  more  excellent  way, 
more  intelligible  and  more  effective.  Personality  is  now 
understood  by  means  of  its  expressions,  and  it  is  well  recog¬ 
nized  that  through  these  we  are  to  learn  about  it  all  that  we 
can  know.  Not  the  constitution  of  the  person,  but  the  mani¬ 
festation  of  the  person,  convinces  us  of  what  he  is.  We  do  not 
argue  that  a  man  is  a  man  because  he  is  humanly  constituted : 
we  know  that  he  is  a  man  because  he  acts  humanly.  We  do 
not  conclude  that  God  is  personal  because  we  can  tell  what 
is  the  essence  of  his  personality,  but  because  we  behold  works 
of  God  that  imply  self-consciousness  and  self-direction. 
Thus  we  obtain  our  conception  of  a  personal  being  not  from 
what  he  is  composed  of,  but  from  what  he  does.  His  self-ex¬ 
pressions  are  our  evidence. 

Under  this  influence,  when  we  approach  Jesus  we  are  led  to 
speak  of  his  person  in  view  not  of  the  essence  of  his  being,  but 
of  his  expression  of  himself.  If  we  really  find  anything  unique 
in  the  person  of  Jesus,  we  shall  find  it  in  his  self-expressions, 
the  manifestations  of  his  inward  being  It  is  in  life  and  char¬ 
acter  that  we  are  to  learn  what  the  person  is.  If  God  is  to  be 
expressed  in  him,  God,  we  know,  will  be  expressed  in  char¬ 
acter  and  the  work  of  character.  So  it  comes  to  pass  that 
we  seek  the  divine  in  Jesus  not  in  the  metaphysical  constitu¬ 
tion  of  his  being,  upon  which  we  can  never  obtain  clear  light, 
but  in  character  worthy  of  God,  in  evidence  of  fellowship  or 
moral  unity  with  God,  in  purpose,  standard  of  life,  holiness. 


TRINITY 


243 


love,  righteousness,  redemptive  aim;  for  in  these  the  divine 
can  normally  find  expression  in  the  human,  God  in  man. 
If  we  do  not  find  God  thus  practically  revealed  in  Jesus, 
a  doctrine  of  his  divinity  built  upon  a  metaphysical  analy¬ 
sis  of  his  person  will  not  be  a  spiritual  or  religious  doctrine. 
But  in  this  field  of  moral,  spiritual,  practical  manifestation 
we  not  only  seek  but  find  the  divine  in  Jesus.  God  is  there. 
The  long  testimony  of  ages  is  true,  that  in  seeing  him  men 
have  seen  the  Father. 

The  second  of  the  two  presuppositions  assumes  a  deep 
unlikeness  between  human  nature  and  divine.  In  the  ancient 
doctrine  the  two  were  held  to  be  so  profoundly  different  that 
they  could  only  exist  side  by  side  in  the  person  of  Jesus — or  if 
they  blended,  it  was  in  a  manner  essentially  mysterious  to  the 
human  mind.  But  it  has  come  to  pass  in  these  later  days  that 
believers  in  God  do  not  affirm  this  deep  unlikeness  in  nature 
between  him  and  men.  It  is  very  true  that  in  the  abstract  or 
metaphysical  realm  we  are  not  competent  to  dogmatize  as  to 
the  hidden  nature  of  either.  But  even  here  we  have  come 
to  the  conviction  that  spirit  must  be  essentially  like  unto  spirit 
everywhere;  and  it  is  certain  that  the  spirit  that  we  find  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  universe  is  of  a  nature  kindred  to  our  own. 
Meanwhile,  under  the  influence  of  Jesus  himself,  religious 
thought  has  come  to  the  definite  conviction  that  in  spiritual 
nature  God  and  man  are  much  more  alike  than  men  have 
supposed.  ^‘Forasmuch  as  we  are  the  offspring  of  God’^ 
it  is  in  no  unreal  sense  that  we  are  said  to  bear  his  likeness. 
In  the  Christian  light  the  idea  of  essential  contrast  and  in¬ 
compatibility  between  the  divine  and  the  human  has  gradually 
faded  away.  Jesus  has  impressed  the  world  that  incarnation, 
or  real  entrance  of  God  into  humanity,  of  which  many  peoples 
have  dreamed,  is  no  mere  dream,  but  is  something  of  which 
God  and  man  are  capable;  and  if  it  proves  true  that  incarna¬ 
tion  is  not  a  matter  for  close  defining,  that  is  only  because  the 
truth  involved  is  too  large  and  mystical  for  definition,  and 
makes  no  difference  in  the  strength  of  the  conviction  that 
Jesus  has  imparted.  Any  degree  of  possession  or  inhabita- 


244 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


tion  of  human  nature  by  God  is  within  his  normal  field  of 
working.  And  human  and  divine  are  not  so  unlike  each 
other  that  they  must  fiow  like  parallel  streams  through  a  single 
life.  Each  is  capable  of  receiving  and  expressing  the  other. 

In  the  light  of  these  considerations  we  look  at  Jesus — not 
at  his  person,  technically  regarded,  but  at  himself.  We  are 
prepared  to  see  divine  and  human  expressed  in  one  person 
and  life,  and  it  is  in  view  of  what  the  personality  has  done  that 
we  expect  to  judge  of  what  nature  it  is.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
we  find  in  Jesus  a  manifestation  of  God  so  great  and  clear  that 
from  him  men  have  learned  what  God  invisible  must  be  like; 
and  the  conception  of  God  that  he  has  imparted  has  com¬ 
mended  itself  to  the  best  faith  and  love  and  judgment  of  man¬ 
kind.  This  is  the  best  evidence  that  God  was  in  him  and 
was  working  in  him  for  the  good  of  men — evidence  better 
than  either  miracles  or  metaphysics  could  give.  We  cannot 
define  what  in  him  is  divine  and  what  is  human,  which  indeed 
no  one  has  ever  been  able  to  do,  but  in  the  manifestation  of  the 
personality  we  read  the  personality :  in  the  human  expression 
we  read  the  man,  and  in  the  manifestation  of  God  we  see 
God.  God  is  there,  and  we  know  it  because  he  has  spoken 
and  acted  there:  he  has  looked  out  through  the  eyes  of 
Jesus,  beaming  his  own  character  upon  the  world.  He  has 
expressed  his  own  purity,  his  tenderness  toward  his  creatures, 
and  his  redemptive  grace.  He  has  shown  us  his  sorrow  over 
our  sins,  his  love  for  our  souls,  and  his  patient  will  to  save. 
God  was  in  Christ  visible,  audible  and  knowable,  and  we 
have  seen  and  heard  and  known  him  there. 

What  we  know  of  God  reminds  us  that  there  was  here 
no  need  of  limitation  or  differentiation  of  his  being,  save  as 
he  always  limits  himself  in  dealing  with  his  worlds.  It  is 
God  himself  who  can  make  humanity  his  temple.  God 
who  has  made  man  in  his  own  likeness  can  fill  him  with  his 
own  fullness.  It  is  God  who  can  incarnate  himself.  He  is 
capable  of  all  relations  with  his  universe  for  which  its  needs 
may  call,  and  his  relation  to  human  nature  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  is  no  exception.  God  himself,  whose  personality,  in 


TRINITY 


245 


our  sense  of  the  word,  is  a  single  personality  is  sufficient  to 
account  for  all  that  we  have  seen,  and  justify  all  our  ador¬ 
ation,  of  God  in  Christ.  It  is  in  this  manner  that  the 
present  doctrine  of  God,  sole,  single  and  all-competent,  takes 
up  or  absorbs  into  itself  this  part  of  the  ancient  doctrine  of 
the  Triunity. 

When  we  come  to  speak  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  taken  up  likewise  into  the  general  doctrine  of  God,  there 
is  no  need  of  many  words.  Time  was  when  God  was  re¬ 
garded  as  transcendent  in  his  greatness  and  purity,  and  it 
was  not  easy  to  think  of  him  as  in  closest  intimacy  with  sinful 
men.  The  helpful  indwelling  Spirit  was  a  messenger  of  God; 
and  when  this  sanctifying  Friend  was  accounted  to  be  of  the 
Godhead,  he  was  regarded  as  not  the  Father  or  the  Son,  but 
a  Third,  coordinate  with  these  and  acting  in  the  line  of  their 
redemptive  purpose.  Very  naturally  then  the  Spirit  was 
spoken  of  as  sent  forth  from  God,  and  as  coming  from  him  to 
men.  The  long-familiar  figurative  language  tells  of  the 
mission  of  the  Spirit,  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  the  outpouring 
of  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  as  representing  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  These  expressions,  consecrated  by  long  use,  have 
outlasted  the  modes  of  Theism  under  the  influence  of  which 
they  were  born.  At  present  we  have  a  clearer  and  diviner 
thought.  Though  we  may  still  speak  of  God  as  sending 
his  Spirit  to  us,  we  are  well  aware  that  the  language  is  inherited 
from  a  bygone  mode  of  picturing  divine  realities,  and  not  the 
language  of  our  present  Christian  life.  God  is  not  afar  that 
he  should  send  to  us,  any  more  than  he  is  overhead  that  he 
should  pour  his  Spirit  out  upon  us.  There  is  no  need  that 
he  should  be  represented  in  our  souls.  “God  is  not  so  far 
away  as  even  to  be  near.’’  It  is  a  vital  truth  in  our  doctrine 
that  God  himself  is  the  indweller.  He  himself  moves  upon 
the  souls  that  he  has  created,  and  abides  in  the  very  secret  of 
their  life.  The  profoundest  and  most  inseparable  indwelling 
with  men  best  consummates  the  relation  in  which  he  and 
they  exist.  This  perfect  inhabitation  of  human  souls  by 


246 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


himself  is  what  he  is  seeking  to  bring  to  pass :  all  that  he  has 
done  through  Christ  is  one  long  endeavour  to  this  end.  And 
our  Christian  faith  rises  to  meet  Christ’s  revelation,  that  God 
himself  is  adequate  to  all  the  indwelling  that  his  creatures 
can  ever  receive.  God  himself  does  all  that  has  ever  been 
attributed  to  the  eternal  Spirit,  for  God  himself  is  the  Spirit. 
Gracious  and  redemptive  inhabitation  of  human  life  is  natural 
to  him  who  is  Creator,  Father,  Saviour,  Lord.  There  is  not 
less  divine  indwelling  than  the  ancient  doctrine  has  affirmed, 
but  more,  but  it  is  indwelling  of  God.  “I  will  dwell  in 
them”  (2  Cor.  vi.  16)  is  a  true  word,  without  diminution. 

We  have  reason  to  welcome  this  truth,  for  the  divine  Spirit 
has  always  offered  the  point  of  greatest  difficulty  in  the 
historic  doctrine.  Father  and  Son  in  God  have  been  found 
distinguishable,  but  it  has  proved  difficult  to  tell  what  the 
eternal  Spirit  is,  in  equality  and  correlation  with  them,  and 
bound  with  them  into  the  perfect  unity.  So  hard  is  the 
problem  that  it  has  been  considered  especially  important  to 
insist  especially  upon  the  personality  of  the  Spirit,  lest  it 
should  be  lost  sight  of.  But  the  difficulty  would  not  now 
arise.  With  our  present  conception  we  can  say  that  what 
Christians  have  called  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God  in  his  people, 
working  in  them  more  freely  and  richly  because  of  the  fresh 
means  of  influence  that  he  has  provided  for  himself  in  Christ. 
It  is  his  nature  to  inhabit  the  human  soul,  and  it  is  normal 
for  the  human  soul  to  be  inhabited  by  him,  and  as  the  Holy 
Spirit  God  always  holds  communion  with  mankind.  God 
is  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  not  merely  God’s 
influence,  but  God  himself,  and  his  personality  is  the  per¬ 
sonality  of  God.  In  this  manner  this  part  also  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  taken  up  into  the  doctrine  of  God  which  the 
present  age  is  finding  clear  and  precious.  For  all  works  God 
suffices.  God  himself  is  the  Father,  God  himself  is  the  divine 
in  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  himself  is  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  this  change  the  substance  of  the  ancient  conception  of 
Three  in  One  does  not  perish,  although  its  form  is  altered. 


TRINITY 


247 


The  Christian  experience  from  which  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  sprang  is  the  same  in  its  essential  nature  now  as 
at  first.  We  know  the  three  relations  of  God  to  men,  and 
have  the  whole  God  in  them  all.  Still  do  we  meet  upon  our 
way  that  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  by  means  of  which 
we  learn  the  love  of  God  and  find  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Christ  brings  us  the  grace  that  ministers  sal¬ 
vation,  we  live  at  home  in  our  Father’s  redeeming  love,  and 
the  friendship  of  the  Spirit  is  our  comfort  and  joy.  Amid 
all  variations,  this  is  a  true  account  of  that  Christian  experi¬ 
ence  which  has  found  sublime  interpretation  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  and  from  this  character  the  Christian  ex¬ 
perience  will  never  depart.  God  self-manifesting  will  still 
make  known  his  own  eternal  love  and  give  his  present  help¬ 
ful  fellowship.  We  still  have  God  as  Father,  we  still  have 
God  in  Christ,  and  we  still  have  God  the  Holy  Spirit. 

There  are  three  types  of  religion  that  correspond  in  a 
measure  to  the  Three  of  the  historic  doctrine.  There  is 
natural  religion,  or  the  religion  of  God  as  he  is  known  in  the 
order  of  the  world.  There  is  historical  religion,  or  religion 
that  finds  its  support  in  the  historical  manifestations  of  God 
in  events  of  time.  And  there  is  personal  religion,  spiritual, 
experimental,  mystical,  that  knows  God  in  the  soul.  “The 
heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God”  (Ps.  xix.  1):  “God  was 
in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself”  (2  Cor.  v.  19): 
“The  Spirit  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are 
children  of  God  ”  (Rom.  viii.  16).  Many  religions  have  known 
something  of  this  variety,  but  these  expressions  represent  the 
forms  in  which  it  is  known  to  the  Christian  experience.  The 
types  when  really  separate  are  very  unlike  each  other,  and  the 
unity  in  this  variety  has  not  always  been  plain.  An  adorer 
of  God  in  nature  may  not  feel  the  need  of  historical  revela¬ 
tions  or  conscious  experiences  to  confirm  his  faith.  One  who 
rests  upon  historical  certainties  may  feel  that  nature  is  insuffi¬ 
cient  and  experience  untrustworthy.  One  who  glories  in  the 
inward  light  of  God  may  consider  himself  independent  both 
of  natural  and  of  historical  revealing.  Doubtless  this  variety 


248 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


will  continue  in  some  measure,  while  men  are  as  varied  as 
they  are,  but  the  all-embracing  harmony  needs  to  be  more 
deeply  felt.  The  Christian  testimony  declares  that  these 
three  types  of  religion  are  one.  In  each  there  is  true  revela¬ 
tion.  God  is  forthshining  in  the  universe,  God  is  self-revealing 
in  the  historical  work  of  holy  love,  and  God  is  self-imparting 
in  the  inward  life  of  men.  In  all  these  God  is  one,  though 
variously  manifested;  and  the  worthiest  religion  will  not  set 
one  form  against  another,  but  will  learn  to  delight  itself  in  the 
one  glory  thrice  revealed,  and  to  be  lovingly  content  while 
others  rejoice  in  the  visions  that  are  less  dear  to  one^s  own 
soul.  Such  comprehensive  faith  in  the  real  Triunity,  comes 
as  the  gift  of  grace  and  the  growth  of  time. 

In  this  view  of  the  Trinity,  it  is  good  to  see  the  two  Father¬ 
hoods  melting  into  each  other.  According  to  the  common 
doctrine,  when  we  sing, Praise  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,’^ 
and  pray,  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven,”  we  really  speak 
of  two  Fatherhoods,  not  of  one;  for  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  the  Father  is  God  original,  back  of  all  revealing, 
while  in  the  Lord^s  Prayer  he  is  God  with  us  and  within  us, 
who  knows  our  wants,  hears  our  prayer  and  forgives  our 
sins.  One  Fatherhood  belongs  to  God  remotest  from  us,  and 
the  other  to  God  nearest  to  us — an  anomaly  that  has  often 
been  perplexing.  We  cannot  help  trusting  the  most  intimate 
use  of  the  name  as  right,  for  we  owe  it  to  the  Son  who  alone 
has  such  knowledge  of  the  Father  as  to  be  able  to  reveal  him; 
(Mt.  xi.  27)  and  as  our  Father  he  has  revealed  him.  Most 
gladly,  therefore,  may  we  welcome  the  dawning  of  a  single 
Fatherhood.  In  the  Christian  light  as  we  behold  it  now, 
God  is  Father  to  the  unique  Son  who  makes  him  known. 
Father  to  those  who  have  entered  the  conscious  fellowship 
of  his  spiritual  family,  and  Father  to  all  spirits,  in  natural 
relation  and  in  faithful  heart. 


GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 


249 


8.  GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 

Our  view  of  God  in  relations  with  men  must  not  close  with¬ 
out  mention  of  God  as  he  is  manifested  in  actual  human  life, 
inner  and  outer,  personal  and  collective.  We  must  show 
how  men  have  to  do  with  him  in  whatever  life  they  live. 

God  the  communicating  Spirit  always  has  to  do  with  the 
inner  life  of  men.  What  has  been  said  already  may  be  re¬ 
called — that  moral  requirements  in  the  soul  represent  God 
and  his  claim  of  right  and  duty;  that  the  moral  judgment  is 
his  witness  within;  that  the  voice  of  conscience  self-judging 
with  approval  or  condemnation  is  his  voice;  and  that  all 
ethical  instructions,  when  they  enter  the  soul,  come  as  part 
of  his  discipline,  weighted  with  his  authority  and  the  serious¬ 
ness  that  he  gives  to  life.  In  this  contact  with  the  inner  life 
God  is  strict  and  holy,  and  at  the  same  time  gracious  and 
helpful.  He  who  is  manifested  in  the  gospel  as  delighting  to 
pardon  does  delight  to  pardon,  and  has  always  pardoned 
when  the  gift  could  be  received.  God  in  the  universal  inner 
life  is  the  holy  friend  of  man. 

It  is  difficult,  however,  to  think  broadly  enough  of  God. 
Sometimes  we  seem  to  assume  that  he  is  altogether  a  religious 
being,  and  is  interested  only,  or  mainly,  in  the  part  of  our 
affairs  that  we  call  religious;  or  if  the  ethical  realm  is  added 
to  his  field,  still  it  is  apt  to  be  regarded  as  a  special  region, 
a  section  in  life,  and  morality  is  merely  added  to  religion  in 
making  up  the  sum  of  that  in  us  which  is  interesting  to  God. 
It  is  an  old  assumption  that  religion  and  morals  constitute 
the  field  in  which  we  have  to  do  with  him.  But  the  truth 
is  broader.  The  interest  of  God  in  our  life  is  as  broad  as 
life  itself.  In  every  part  of  it  we  have  to  do  with  him,  and  he 
is  always  uttering  himself  to  us. 

The  principle,  already  stated,  is  so  simple  as  to  be  often 
overlooked.  In  that  which  God  has  given  a  man,  God  speaks 
to  him  as  long  as  he  possesses  the  gift,  and  appeals  to  him  to 


250 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


use  it  worthily.  The  demand  for  right  and  worthy  use,  which 
comes  with  every  occasion  for  using  a  power  or  principle,  is  an 
appeal  of  God  himself.  Men  may  not  know  it,  but  it  is  so, 
and  the  learning  of  this  constitutes  a  great  part  of  learning 
the  significance  of  life.  For  example,  it  was  God,  creating 
him  in  his  own  likeness,  that  made  man  a  rational  being  and 
made  his  rational  nature  the  key  to  his  destiny.  Therefore 
it  is  right  to  say  that  all  genuine  and  worthy  suggestions  of 
this  destiny-making  rationality  are  from  God.  The  man 
may  hear  them  without  discerning  the  voice  of  God,  but  that 
is  where  he  misunderstands  himself.  Every  rational  sug¬ 
gestion  comes  not  only  from  our  own  nature,  but  from  God 
who  gave  it. 

There  are  as  many  illustrations  here  as  there  are  aspects 
of  human  nature.  A  man  is  a  social  being  also,  and  God 
made  him  so.  A  thousand  relations  with  others  press  upon 
him;  and  in  them  all  he  is  receiving  God’s  perpetual  sugges¬ 
tion  that  he  act  as  a  social  being  ought,  suppressing  lower 
motives,  and  raising  conscience  and  unselfishness  to  the 
supreme  place.  A  man  is  a  being  of  aesthetic  endowments: 
he  loves  beauty,  he  has  imitative  and  constructive  ability,  he 
has  a  true  creative  power,  within  limits,  to  produce  the  beau¬ 
tiful.  He  has  poetic  insight.  All  the  fine  arts  are  out¬ 
growths  of  his  nature,  and  by  them  he  strikes  into  a  wonderful 
harmony  with  the  order  of  nature  about  him,  and  acts  upon 
the  very  principles  whereby  God  made  the  beauty  of  the  uni¬ 
verse.  God  made  him  thus,  and  gave  him  his  aesthetic 
faculties  as  a  part  of  his  own  likeness.  In  these  faculties  God 
speaks  to  him  still,  appealing  to  him  to  prize  the  gift,  to  train 
it  normally,  and  to  use  it  in  harmony  with  the  highest  good. 
A  man  loves  pleasure,  and  God  made  him  so.  In  all 
pleasure,  and  in  all  appeals  of  pleasure,  God  addresses  him, 
urging  him  to  enjoy  the  pleasure  in  purity  and  worthiness,  to 
judge  its  worth  correctly,  to  keep  it  in  its  right  place,  and 
make  it  servant  to  his  higher  powers.  A  man  is  an  active 
being,  with  capacities  for  work,  and  a  nature  that  cannot 
prosper  without  it.  He  is  an  aspiring  being,  with  ambitions 


GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 


251 


that  reach  out  for  better  things,  constitutionally  discontented 
with  his  lot  and  seeking  an  upward  way.  He  is  a  truth- 
lover,  all  too  unworthily  and  yet  really  and  forever,  perpetually 
inquiring,  longing  to  see  things  as  they  are,  clamouring  at  the 
gates  of  mystery  beyond  which  he  is  sure  that  reality  may  be 
found.  He  is  a  worshipper,  with  eyes  turned  upward  to 
superior  powers,  seeking  for  his  soul  a  fellowship  above 
the  human.  God  made  him  thus  active,  aspiring,  truth- 
loving,  adoring,  and  through  the  possession  of  these  qualities 
God  is  constantly  in  communication  with  him.  In  this  man¬ 
ner  God  is  in  communication  with  the  inner  life  of  every  man, 
no  matter  where  or  in  what  human  period,  always  suggesting 
through  the  power  the  normal  use  of  the  power,  and  calling 
upon  the  man  to  be  himself.  And  when  temptations  come, 
urging  the  man  to  destroy  the  balance  of  his  nature,  to  put 
pleasure  first,  to  trample  down  his  fellows,  to  be  ambitious 
for  himself  alone,  to  forget  God,  to  enthrone  the  brute  and 
not  the  soul,  with  these  also  he  may  hear  the  voice  of  God, 
warning  him  not  thus  to  defeat  his  own  being,  and  bidding 
him  rise  upon  this  opportunity  of  evil  to  a  new  assertion, 
encouragement  and  strengthening  of  his  better  part. 

By  such  means  God  is  in  the  inner  life  of  men — not  of  a 
few  men  specially  privileged,  but  of  all  whom  he  has  created 
human.  A  God  who  has  placed  within  a  race  a  growing 
soul  is  always  in  communication  with  that  race  through  the 
presence  of  that  soul.  With  the  growth  of  the  soul  the  moral 
element  in  life  becomes  larger  and  the  religious  element 
more  full  of  meaning,  and  through  conscience  and  religious 
aspiration  God  becomes  yet  more  deeply  and  closely  present 
in  the  inner  life.  Men  have  known  it,  too — dimly  and  grop¬ 
ingly  indeed,  and  without  knowing  how  much  it  means,  and 
yet  so  well  as  to  be  aware  that  all  their  life  has  moral  meaning, 
and  to  retain  the  impression  that  it  has  to  do  with  God. 

This  universal  intimacy  with  men  stands  not  at  the  end  of 
God^s  gracious  operation  but  at  the  beginning.  It  is  a 
proper  part  of  life.  Perfectly  normal  to  humanity,  and  to  be 


252 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


desired  by  all  spirits,  is  the  indwelling  of  God.  Perfectly 
normal  is  that  sweet  and  strong  indwelling  which  is  set  forth 
in  the  New  Testament  under  the  name  of  the  Spirit  (Rom. 
viii.  9).  Other  names  are  used:  we  read  of  “God  in  you’^ 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  25),  and  “Christ  in  you”  (Jn.  xv.  2),  and  these 
three  forms  of  speech  have  essentially  one  meaning.  But  the 
representation  most  characteristic  of  the  gospel  is  the  one 
that  gives  to  the  indwelling  God  the  name  of  the  Spirit,  often 
spoken  of  as  the  Holy  Spirit.  Here  the  high  spiritual  and 
practical  relation  that  Christianity  contemplates  between 
God  and  man  is  fitly  represented  by  a  pure  ethical  doctrine 
of  God  in  the  inner  life.  According  to  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  God  has  been  manifested  in  Christ  for  the  saving  of 
men,  and  now  the  indwelling  Spirit  brings  the  revelation 
home  to  the  soul,  that  God  may  accomplish  his  purpose. 
God  dwells  in  man  to  complete  his  own  creative  and  redemp¬ 
tive  work.  It  is  not  too  much  to  call  this  the  noblest  practical 
view  of  divine  influence  upon  the  experience  of  mankind  that 
has  ever  been  known.  The  full  account  of  it  belongs  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  life,  but  the  doctrine  of  God  would 
not  be  complete  without  some  unfolding  of  this  intimacy  of 
his  with  men,  as  the  New  Testament  sets  it  forth. 

To  God  the  Spirit,  operative  within,  is  attributed  the  awak¬ 
ening  of  that  new  life  which  consists  in  spiritual  fellowship 
with  himself.  The  Spirit  regenerates.  He  bears  inward 
witness  to  the  sonship  of  the  man  to  God,  confirming  from 
the  divine  side  the  certainty  of  the  human  that  such  sonship 
is  a  fact.  As  a  Spirit  of  adoption  he  evokes  the  cry,  “Father,” 
from  the  child:  that  is,  he  develops  the  free  and  joyful  filial 
life,  and  establishes  it  as  the  conscious  life  of  the  man.  He 
suggests  prayer  so  great  and  deep  as  to  be  beyond  expression : 
that  is,  he  awakens  the  longings  of  the  soul  after  the  highest 
good  and  keeps  them  stretching  forth  with  untold  eagerness, 
not  merely  as  desires,  but  as  prayers  to  the  Father’s  love.  He 
thus  helps  the  weakness  of  those  in  whom  he  dwells,  stirring 
the  noblest  in  them  to  lofty  flights  of  aspiration  (Rom.  viii. 
15-27).  He  has  all  sweet  and  holy  traits  of  character  and 


GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 


253 


works  of  life  for  the  results  of  his  presence,  so  that  the  fruit 
of  the  Spirit”  includes  (Gal.  v.  22)  all  the  worthiest  things 
that  are  known  to  men.  He  is  the  comforter  in  trouble,  the 
sustainer  in  reproach,  the  author  of  fraternal  grace  and 
forgiveness,  the  inspirer  of  brotherly  love  and  usefulness. 
He  makes  divine  realities  known  to  the  soul  that  can  discern 
them,  revealing  the  very  deeps  of  God.  He  makes  Christ 
ever  better  known  and  more  richly  appreciated.  He  brings 
in  deep  and  strong  convictions  concerning  sin  and  righteous¬ 
ness  and  God^s  eternal  judgment  of  the  difference  between 
them.  He  reminds  the  soul  of  forgotten  truth,  and  guides 
on  toward  ever  fuller  understanding  of  what  God  reveals. 
He  is  the  very  Spirit  of  truth,  who  makes  truth  dear  to  all 
who  know  him.  He  makes  the  soul  wise  with  a  heavenly 
wisdom,  such  as  this  world  untaught  by  him  can  never  master. 
He  is  the  inspirer  of  holy  and  spiritual  hope,  both  for  this 
life  and  the  life  that  is  to  come,  and  his  presence  with  the 
soul  is  the  pledge  of  an  inheritance  in  life  eternal.  He 
opposes  and  defeats  the  inferior  being,  sets  the  soul  at  liberty, 
and  is  the  inspiration  of  the  victorious  life,  wherein  hope  is 
fulfilled  and  the  will  of  God  is  done. 

No  more  characteristic  or  convincing  picture  of  the  good 
God  could  be  drawn  than  is  sketched  in  these  descriptions 
of  the  work  that  he  delights  to  perform  in  every  soul  that  is 
open  to  his  indwelling.  What  manner  of  God  the  Christian 
doctrine  sets  forth,  we  see  clearly  in  the  service  that  he 
loves  to  render  to  all  who  will  receive  it  at  his  hands.  This 
picture  of  what  he  does  in  the  Christian  life  and  character 
is  confirmed  by  experience;  or  rather,  it  was  out  of  experience 
that  our  accounts  of  it  were  written.  If  Christian  souls  had 
not  known  him  in  this  manner,  we  should  never  have  read 
thus  of  his  character  and  his  gracious  help.  This  picture  of 
his  influence  in  the  inner  life  shows  how  good  a  God  he  is, 
and  commends  him  to  the  faith  of  all  who  hear  his  name. 

In  all  the  thoughtful  religions  as  well  as  in  Christianity 
the  question  has  arisen  whether  in  the  Inner  life  God  is  known 


254 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


directly  or  not.  Does  the  soul  have  immediate  cognizance  of 
him,  and  commune  with  him  face  to  face  in  perfect  con¬ 
sciousness  that  he  is  there  ?  or  does  the  soul  know  God  only 
mediately,  through  his  truth,  through  the  suggestions  of  its 
own  spiritual  powers  inspired  by  him,  and  by  faith  believing 
that  he  is  there  though  not  distinctly  seen?  Both  answers 
are  given.  The  mystic  is  sure  that  he  has  immediate  touch 
of  God  upon  his  soul :  he  sees  God  with  the  inner  eye  and  is 
sure  of  the  vision :  he  hears  the  voice  and  knows  whose  voice 
it  is.  That  another  has  no  such  consciousness  is  to  him  no 
disproof  or  cause  for  doubting:  he  knows  for  himself,  and 
rises  to  sublime  heights  of  holy  joy  in  the  beatific  vision. 
Who  can  disprove  his  claim  ?  and  who  would  do  it  if  he  could  ? 
The  universal  Church  endorses  it  by  the  voice  of  its  hymns, 
which  often  sing  out  the  rapture  of  face-to-face  communion 
with  God.  Yet  many  another  Christian,  no  less  conscientious 
and  God-loving  than  the  mystic,  is  aware  of  no  such  immediate 
touch  of  his  God  upon  his  soul,  or  if  he  knows  it  at  all  it  is 
only  in  rare  moments  long  desired  and  long  remembered. 
There  are  many  whose  vision  of  God  is  all  of  it  consciously  a 
vision  of  faith  alone.  That  another  has  seen  God  face  to 
face  in  the  inner  temple  does  not  help  these  to  have  immediate 
vision  of  him  there,  but  they  love  him  in  the  dark  as  sincerely 
as  others  in  the  light,  and  serve  him  as  loyally  in  the  daily  life. 

We  cannot  tell  beforehand  by  theory  which  view  of  the 
matter  will  be  right.  We  cannot  foresee  how  God  in  the 
inner  life  will  manifest  himself,  but  are  shut  up  to  the  testimony 
of  experience  if  we  wish  to  know.  But  experience  bears 
various  testimony,  as  we  see:  moreover,  it  is  always  open  to 
us  to  question  whether  experience  understands  itself  aright. 
Perhaps  the  vision  of  God  in  the  dark  is  more  direct  than  the 
soul  knows,  and  perhaps  the  touch  that  seems  most  gloriously 
direct  is  in  some  sense  mediated,  without  the  souks  knowing 
it.  Or  perhaps  both  reporters  may  be  right,  each  for  him¬ 
self.  But  the  variety  need  not  trouble  us.  What  can  be 
more  natural  than  that  God  should  have  many  ways  with 
men  ?  His  greatness  would  lead  us  to  look  for  this,  and  so 


GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 


255 


would  the  variety  in  human  nature.  To  one  it  may  be  given 
to  discern  God  in  one  way,  and  to  another  in  another.  He 
to  whose  greatness  all  modes  are  open  is  not  certain  to  confine 
himself  to  one,  and  the  humanity  that  has  so  many  forms  of 
inner  life  can  scarcely  expect  that  all  its  members  will  recog¬ 
nize  in  one  manner  the  indwelling  God.  We  must  let  God 
be  great,  and  the  inner  knowledge  of  him  be  various.  Even 
in  one  lifetime  there  may  be  many  possibilities.  A  clear 
vision  attained  to-day  may  not  be  retained  to-morrow,  and 
may  be  remembered  with  regret  and  longing  till  it  comes  again. 
It  is  comforting  to  learn  that  “God  fulfils  himself  in  many 
ways’^  to  the  secret  soul,  as  well  as  to  the  great  world. 

From  considering  God  in  the  inner  life,  we  turn  to  think 
of  God  in  the  open  life,  and  especially  in  the  common  life  of 
mankind.  It  is  an  old  misunderstanding  of  Christianity  to 
suppose  it  a  religion  of  the  individual  alone.  There  is  a 
passage  in  Augustine,  in  which  an  inquirer  for  truth  is  asked 
what  it  is  that  he  desires  and  prays  to  know;  and  he  de¬ 
clares  that  it  is  “God  and  the  soul.’’  “Nothing  more?”  his 
companion  asks,  and  “Nothing  whatever”  is  the  answer. 
That  religion  is  a  matter  between  God  and  the  soul  alone 
has  never  been  a  doctrine  of  Christianity,  but  it  has  been 
a  frequent  impression  among  Christians,  fostered  by  much 
true  but  partial  teaching.  But  if  one  wishes  to  see  God  in 
the  light  of  Jesus,  it  is  not  enough  to  look  above  and  within: 
one  must  look  also  without  and  around.  God,  the  soul,  and 
the  men  with  whom  we  live  form  a  triad  not  to  be  diminished 
if  we  desire  to  know  any  one  of  the  three  aright.  So  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  God  in  relations  with  men  is  not  completed  by  viewing 
it  as  doctrine  of  God  in  the  inner  life.  God  must  be  found 
and  recognized  in  the  common  life,  or  the  life  of  men  together, 
no  less  than  in  the  interior  life  of  the  soul. 

The  starting-point  for  this  part  of  the  doctrine  is  not  a 
new  one,  but  has  been  already  indicated.  That  nature  of 
man  through  which  God  is  always  speaking  to  him  includes 
his  social  nature.  As  we  have  seen,  man  is  not  himself,  and 


256 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


would  never  have  come  to  be  himself,  but  for  the  social  rela¬ 
tions  in  which  he  is  placed.  If  we  say  that  God  permanently 
appeals  to  man  through  the  nature  that  he  has  given  him, 
of  course  it  is  implied  that  the  appeals  of  his  social  nature  are 
appeals  of  God.  The  word  of  God  is  in  the  life  of  man. 
The  opportunity  to  live  according  to  righteousness  with  his 
fellows  is  a  word  of  God  to  him,  bringing  counsel,  illumina¬ 
tion  and  appeal.  So  is  the  opportunity  to  live  according  to 
love  and  in  the  spirit  of  helpful  fellowship.  The  language  of 
natural  affection  utters  in  the  heart  a  word  of  God.  The 
cry  of  misery  and  want  brings  the  sound  of  two  voices,  the 
voice  of  the  wretched  and  the  voice  of  God.  All  appeals  of 
sudden  occasion  or  of  steady  need,  to  which  a  man  may  make 
answer  with  help  both  warm  and  wise,  are  God’s  appeals. 
All  suggestions  arising  in  the  course  of  history,  when  common 
wrong  has  brought  forth  misery  and  human  beings  are  losing 
their  value  through  the  common  fault,  are  God’s  authoritative 
suggestions  for  promotion  of  a  better  social  righteousness. 
Not  only  is  God  speaking  through  all  awakenings  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  conscience  and  agitations  for  better  conduct:  he  is  speak¬ 
ing  through  all  the  crises  in  public  affairs  that  bring  such 
awakening  of  conscience,  and  through  those  that  ought  to 
bring  it  but  do  not.  In  all  the  burning  evils  of  the  common 
life  God  is  speaking,  often  with  a  voice  of  thunder,  calling 
men  to  better  things.  In  all  the  moral  aspects  of  the  life 
of  men  together,  God  is  giving  voice  to  his  own  moral  nature, 
that  men  may  learn;  and  all  the  life  of  men  together  is  moral, 
so  that  God  is  working  through  it  at  every  point,  perpetually 
revealing  himself,  and  giving  counsel,  reproof  and  higher 
instruction.  As  in  the  inner  life,  so  in  the  common  life,  men 
may  not  know  that  God  is  there,  and  may  miss  his  call  or 
misinterpret  his  counsel;  but  none  the  less  is  God  there,  with 
his  living  word  for  them  to  hear. 

These  statements  are  not  to  be  understood  as  applying  to 
Christian  lands  and  times  alone.  This  work  of  God  comes  to 
pass  by  no  special  revelation ;  it  comes  in  the  course  of  nature. 
That  we  have  not  discerned  it  does  not  destroy  it.  God  has 


GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 


257 


made  men  so  that  this  instruction  from  him  comes  to  them 
by  their  very  nature.  Through  the  moral  nature  of  their 
social  life,  as  well  as  of  their  inner  life,  God  keeps  in  adminis¬ 
trative  communication,  so  to  speak,  with  all  human  beings. 
His  authority  is  upon  them  in  their  social  duties.  It  was  so 
from  the  first  hour  when  there  were  social  duties  that  men 
could  intelligently  perceive.  To  many  Christians  it  has  been 
an  obscure  question  how  God  could  have  and  hold  such 
connection,  righteously,  with  “dusky  tribes  and  twilight 
centuries,”  where  he  was  unknown  in  his  true  character  and 
called  by  wrong  names.  In  these  facts  the  question  is 
answered.  He  gave  men  their  personal  powers  and  social 
relations,  and  thus  placed  them  under  duty,  where  they  could 
never  escape  its  claims;  and  of  necessity  he  who  thus  consti¬ 
tuted  their  life  was  the  one  who  would  hold  authority  and 
judgment  over  it.  There  has  never  been  a  human  being  who 
did  not  have  to  do  with  God  in  the  duties  that  he  owed  to  the 
men  who  lived  about  him.  There  is  no  proud  structure  of 
social  order  that  does  not  stand  approved  or  condemned 
in  God’s  own  presence,  according  as  it  does  right  or  wrong 
toward  the  human  beings  whose  destinies  are  committed  to 
its  care.  Through  the  relations  and  attendant  duties  that 
he  has  constituted  throughout  humanity,  God  stands  in 
authority  over  all  men,  and  their  relations  to  one  another 
form  an  element  in  their  relation  to  him. 

This  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  no  man  and  no  society  can 
fulfil  duty  toward  God  by  considering  God  alone.  Human 
relations  enter  into  religion.  Duty  toward  men  is  part  of 
duty  toward  God,  and  the  two  can  never  be  separated.  It  is 
in  the  very  constitution  of  nature  that  God  must  be  served 
by  serving  men.  Not  by  this  alone  is  he  to  be  served,  but 
without  this  never  to  the  full;  and  God,  being  the  God  that 
he  is,  could  not  have  appointed  it  to  be  otherwise. 

When  we  come  to  that  clearer  manifestation  of  God  which 
is  made  in  Jesus  Christ,  we  find  this  provision  of  nature  re¬ 
affirmed  with  perfect  distinctness.  From  Jesus  we  hear  that  the 


258 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


supreme  requirements  in  religion  are  two,  not  one.  They  are 
alike,  he  says,  but  they  are  two.  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart’’  is  one,  and  “Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself”  is  the  other  (Mt. xxii.  37-39).  They  are 
alike,  in  that  both  are  calls  for  love.  Each  requires  the  plac¬ 
ing  of  self  where  self  belongs  but  does  not  always  wish  to  go, 
and  the  choosing  and  honouring  of  another  object.  Here  is 
the  triad  that  was  mentioned  a  little  while  ago — God,  the  self 
and  the  neighbour — and  all  three  are  included  in  the  scope  of 
religion.  The  God  of  the  first  commandment  is  the  God  of 
the  second,  and  men  cannot  expect  that  he  will  be  satisfied 
with  obedience  to  the  first  while  the  second  is  disregarded — 
even  if  such  obedience  were  possible.  The  claim  of  God  is 
just  as  truly  present  in  the  second  as  in  the  first,  and  a  man 
deals  with  God  in  dealing  with  his  neighbour,  just  as  truly 
as  in  dealing  directly  with  God  himself.  There  is  an  impact 
of  God  upon  the  soul  in  every  contact  with  the  neighbour,  and 
the  thing  that  ought  to  be  done  toward  the  neighbour  is  a 
thing  in  which  God  is  revealed  in  his  authority  and  his  char¬ 
acter  to  the  man  who  ought  to  do  it. 

Other  words  to  the  same  effect  fell  from  the  lips  of  Jesus. 
He  told  the  man  who  was  ready  in  the  temple  with  an  offering 
to  God  to  leave  his  gift  at  the  altar  and  go  and  be  reconciled 
to  the  brother  who  had  something  against  him,  before  he 
should  offer  his  gift  (Mt.  v.  23-24).  God  did  not  wish  to  be 
served  with  a  service  that  ignored  a  moral  claim  of  man,  and 
took  the  place  of  what  ought  to  be  done  to  an  injured  brother. 
God  thus  associates  man  with  himself,  so  to  speak,  and 
declines  to  be  honoured  when  man  is  wronged.  A  more 
radical  word,  or  one  more  profoundly  true,  Jesus  never  uttered. 
Some  of  the  most  terrible  of  the  reproofs  that  he  administered 
to  the  Pharisees  were  reproofs  for  thinking  that  they  could 
combine  the  wronging  of  men  with  the  service  of  God. 
They  claimed  much  devoutness,  but  they  wronged  the  poor. 
In  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  Jesus  showed,  in  reality, 
how  both  the  great  commands  were  to  be  honoured.  The 
parable  was  framed  in  answer  to  the  question,  “Who  is  my 


GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 


259 


neighbour  ?  ’’  but  that  the  Samaritan  in  serving  the  suffering 
neighbour  was  doing  the  will  of  his  God  is  obvious  upon  the 
very  face  of  this  splendid  utterance.  The  priest  and  the  Levite 
were  of  the  temple  but  not  of  God :  the  Samaritan,  thought  to 
be  outside  God’s  fold,  did  God’s  will  in  serving  his  human 
brother.  All  through  the  New  Testament  the  same  principle 
rules.  It  is  true  that  the  large  social  applications  of  the 
Christian  spirit  are  not  unfolded  upon  those  pages,  the  time 
for  them  not  having  fully  come,  but  the  principle  is  there. 
Consider  the  brother;  look  not  to  your  own  interests  but  also 
to  those  of  others;  no  man  liveth  to  himself;  I  seek  not  yours, 
but  you.  The  First  Epistle  of  John  works  a  reductio  ad 
ahsurdnm  upon  the  claim  that  a  man  loves  God  while  he 
does  not  love  his  neighbour  (iv.  20):  it  is  impossible;  one 
who  does  not  love  close  at  hand  in  actual  life,  where  there  is 
tangible  opportunity  to  test  the  love,  cannot  love  in  the  un¬ 
seen  region  where  it  is  so  easy  to  mistake  an  abstraction 
for  an  affection.  Thus  the  Christian  revelation  repeats 
and  reinforces  that  law  of  nature  according  to  which 
the  human  claim  is  a  divine  claim  also,  and  the  cry  of  the 
neighbour  is  the  call  of  God.  How  vivid  is  the  picture 
in  the  parable  of  Judgment — “Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto 
one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  did  it  unto  me” 
(Mt.  XXV.  40) ! 

In  the  very  centre  of  Christianity  this  law  is  again  expressed 
in  supreme  power  and  beauty.  Jesus  is  the  finest  illustration 
that  we  know  of  love  to  God.  All  the  signs  of  love — the 
confidence,  the  devotion,  the  delight — appear  in  him.  To 
God  he  was  absolutely  loyal,  and  in  his  love  he  performed 
God’s  will  with  an  understanding  of  it  most  profoundly 
true.  When  we  ask  how  he  showed  this  most  loyal  and  intel¬ 
ligent  love  to  God,  and  how  he  satisfied  his  own  heart  in 
doing  the  Father’s  will,  the  answer  is  ready.  He  showed 
his  love  to  God  in  the  service  that  he  performed  for  men. 
He  loved  his  neighbour  as  himself,  and  better,  as  our  hearts 
cry  when  we  behold  his  cross,  and  it  was  in  such  love  that  he 
expressed  his  love  and  wrought  out  his  loyalty  to  God.  In 


260 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


life  and  death,  Jesus  is  the  supreme  illustration  of  the  truth 
that  God  is  served  in  serving  men. 

This  truth  has  sometimes  been  accounted  mysterious,  but 
it  is  quite  plain  as  soon  as  we  remember  what  God  is  doing 
for  men.  It  has  often  been  asked  in  sincere  reverence 
whether  man,  in  his  littleness,  can  bring  to  God  any  real 
service.  We  ins'tinctively  approve  what  some  one  has  said, 
that  there  cannot  be  any  such  thing  as  mere  court-service  to 
God,  a  service  of  external  form  and  deference,  in  which  noth¬ 
ing  important  is  really  done;  but  if  something  really  service¬ 
able  to  God  is  called  for,  what  is  there  that  a  man  can  render  ? 
Light  upon  the  question  does  not  come,  so  long  as  we  think 
of  God  as  reigning  afar,  and  absorbed  in  purposes  that  are 
beyond  our  comprehension.  But  we  ought  to  know  by  this 
time  that  God  is  steadily  devoted  to  promoting  the  welfare  of 
the  human  race  which  he  created.  The  course  of  its  history 
is  the  course  of  God’s  training  of  its  life  and  development  of 
its  destiny.  This  is  no  new  doctrine:  it  is  as  old  as  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  a  good  God;  and  yet  it  comes  almost  as  if  it  were 
new,  for  illumination  upon  our  question.  Any  work  of  man 
that  helps  humanity  furthers  the  desire  and  purpose  of  God. 
Certainly  he  must  be  really  served  by  any  work  that  tends 
to  promote  the  end  that  he  is  seeking.  Any  work  that  pro¬ 
motes  high  and  pure  religion,  or  sound  intelligence,  or  right¬ 
eousness  between  man  and  man,  or  justice  and  helpfulness  in 
the  social  order,  or  better  opportunities  for  successful  life, 
or  the  development  of  the  human  faculties,  or  the  lessening 
of  any  evil  that  represses  and  spoils  human  beings,  is  real 
service  to  God,  for  it  promotes  his  purpose  and  tends  toward 
the  completing  of  his  creative  design.  There  is  no  need  of 
wondering  how  we  can  offer  to  God  a  service  of  real  value, 
for  the  world  is  full  of  opportunities,  since  it  is  a  fact  that  God 
is  to  be  served  by  serving  men. 

This  truth  offers  itself  to  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  as 
a  descriptive  statement.  God  is  a  Being  who  can  be  served 
by  serving  men.  More — he  is  a  God  who  must  be  served  by 
serving  men,  if  service  to  him  is  to  be  of  the  kind  that  will 


GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 


261 


please  him  best.  Service  to  him  consists  in  contributing  to 
the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose;  and  his  purpose,  which 
we  call  his  will,  includes  worthy  and  successful  life,  both  for 
the  person  who  serves  and  for  the  common  humanity  to  which 
he  belongs.  So  a  man  may  serve  God  by  seeking  to  fulfil 
his  own  true  destiny,  and  by  helping  others  to  fulfil  theirs. 
Service  that  is  not  gathered  under  one  of  these  two  heads  is 
mere  formality  or  court-service.  It  may  take  some  approved 
and  acceptable  form,  but  it  accomplishes  nothing  beyond 
itself,  and  contributes  nothing  to  the  doing  of  the  will  of  God. 

Here  we  meet  again  the  ancient  conception  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  and  here  we  can  best  understand  it  in  relation  to 
the  present  time.  Whatever  else  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
expected  to  be,  it  was  to  include  a  multitude  of  men,  who 
would  have  to  do  with  one  another  and  with  God.  It  was 
not  to  be  a  fact  in  the  field  of  individualism,  but  an  institution 
of  the  common  life,  a  social  fact. 

The  kingdom  of  God,  we  know,  was  expected  to  be  a  re¬ 
newed  and  glorified  kingdom  of  Israel.  We  often  condemn 
the  Jews  for  what  we  call  an  earthly  hope,  but  we  are  only 
partly  right.  To  them  the  glorious  Israel  of  the  past  was  the 
Israel  of  David’s  kingdom,  and  the  typical  and  glorious  Israel 
of  the  future  was  a  kingdom  also,  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Whether  with  or  without  a  vicegerent  of  his  power,  God 
would  be  the  king.  Of  course,  there  could  be  no  single  picture 
of  that  coming  time  as  imagination  foresaw  it,  and  the  pictures 
that  were  drawn  varied  widely.  But  to  all  it  was  the  good  time 
coming,  all  the  faithful  of  Israel  would  have  part  in  it,  wrongs 
would  be  righted,  right  would  be  done,  righteousness  would 
bring  peace,  the  people  of  the  kingdom  would  prosper  and  be 
joyful  under  their  divine  King.  In  favourable  conditions  it 
might  have  been  expected  that  the  existing  Israel  would 
develop  through  faith  and  righteousness  into  such  a  kingdom, 
but  conditions  grew  unfavourable  to  such  a  hope.  The 
national  organization  was  lost  and  failed  to  be  restored,  and 
the  national  virtue  did  not  rise  to  so  high  a  quality  as  the  hope 


262 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


required.  But  the  hope  could  not  die:  instead,  it  changed 
its  tone,  and  became  a  hope  of  miraculous  transformations. 
The  kingdom  would  not  belong  to  the  present  order  of  the 
world.  All  would  be  changed,  the  conditions  of  life  would 
be  altered,  the  faithful  dead  would  come  forth  from  their 
graves,  the  kingdom  would  be  manifested  in  a  flash  of  divine 
power,  various  marvels  would  attend  upon  the  happy  life 
within  its  bounds,  the  world  outside  would  perish  in  its 
sins,  and  the  full  glory  of  God  would  be  manifested  in  his 
reigning  over  a  righteous  people. 

When  Jesus  appeared  in  Israel,  it  was  announced  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand.  Expectations  varied,  and 
just  what  was  to  be  looked  for  this  proclamation  did  not 
make  entirely  plain.  It  has  been  much  discussed  how  Jesus 
himself  understood  the  kingdom  of  God;  whether  he  looked 
for  a  kingdom  of  miraculous  transformations,  in  new  heavens 
and  earth,  or  for  the  gradual  introduction  of  a  holy  spiritual 
dominion  of  God  in  the  existing  world.  But  the  question  is 
not  important  to  the  present  purpose,  which  leads  us  to  be 
concerned  only  with  the  actual  historical  development.  We 
wish  to  know  what  kingdom  of  God  there  is,  that  we  can  see 
coming  forth  from  the  work  of  Jesus  and  advancing  through 
the  Christian  period.  If  we  can  rightly  identify  such  a  king¬ 
dom  of  God,  we  shall  be  able  to  judge  what  light  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  God  receives  from  this  ancient  conception. 

On  this  point  the  light  is  clear.  We  know  what  manner 
of  kingdom  of  God  came  forth.  The  miraculous  transforma¬ 
tion  did  not  occur,  and  no  kingdom  of  radically  new  and  un¬ 
earthly  type  was  initiated.  The  world  went  on.  The 
kingdom  of  God  that  was  really  at  hand  when  Jesus  appeared 
has  been  developed  in  the  existing  order  of  this  world’s  life. 
At  present  we  can  read  the  past  plainly  enough  to  see  that 
this  was  the  only  right  and  possible  method.  There  was 
nothing  in  the  work  of  Jesus  that  tended  to  bring  upon  the 
world  a  miraculous  catastrophe,  and  nothing  in  his  influence 
for  good  that  would  have  had  its  characteristic  promotion  in 
such  an  event.  From  the  result  it  does  not  appear  that  he 


GOD  IN  HUMAN  LIFE 


263 


came  to  produce  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  except  as 
any  place  is  new  wherein  dwells  righteousness.  In  the  normal 
successions  of  human  history  his  work  was  wrought  out  in 
accordance  with  its  nature.  The  appropriate  result  of  a 
work  like  his  was  the  long  unfolding  of  the  grace  of  God  in 
the  world.  The  kingdom  of  God  that  came  in  with  Jesus 
was  the  practical  dominion  of  God  in  the  life  that  men  live 
together — a  kingdom  that  came,  and  is  still  coming,  and  has 
yet  to  come. 

In  the  highest  religion,  the  kingly  idea  retires  in  great 
measure  into  the  fatherly,  to  the  great  enriching  of  our 
thoughts  of  God.  In  the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament, 
where  the  new  life  in  Christ  is  an  experience,  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  but  very  slightly  mentioned,  while  Fatherhood  and 
Saviourhood  are  at  the  front.  But  the  ethical  conception 
which  the  ancient  idea  of  the  kingdom  sends  down  with 
power  into  the  modern  time  is  not  destroyed  or  weakened  by 
this  change.  It  is  a  conception  not  of  formal  royalty,  but  of 
ethical  sovereignty  and  practical  sway,  and  its  field  is  that  of 
the  general  life,  socially  considered.  Bringing  the  biblical 
idea  to  present  application,  by  the  kingdom  of  God  we  mean 
God’s  moral  government  of  social  life  on  Christian  principles. 
The  kingdom  of  God  is  a  very  different  thing  from  a  body  of 
people,  to  be  enumerated  in  a  census,  and  from  a  visible 
institution  with  its  organization  and  official  corps.  No  man 
has  ever  seen  it.  It  is  not  the  Church,  as  has  often  been  sup¬ 
posed.  The  Church  is  one  of  its  agencies,  but  the  kingdom 
itself  is  that  which  the  Church  is  intended  to  promote.  It  is 
not  a  domain  but  a  dominion.  It  is  a  divine  pervasion  of 
human  facts.  It  is  an  influence,  a  searching  and  controlling 
Christian  force,  taking  effect  upon  the  life  that  men  live 
together.  We  cannot  put  it  into  an  exhaustive  definition; 
but  when  the  kingdom  has  come,  the  eternal  goodness  loving 
in  wisdom  will  have  human  goodness  loving  in  wisdom  for  its 
counterpart  on  earth.  When  the  kingdom  has  come,  the 
relations  of  man  with  man,  of  man  with  woman,  of  parent 
with  child,  of  neighbour  with  neighbour,  of  individual  with 


264 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


society,  of  class  with  class,  of  trade  with  trade,  of  citizen  with 
state,  of  strong  with  weak,  of  nation  with  nation,  of  race  with 
race,  will  be  determined  and  pervaded  by  the  mind  of  Christ, 
which  is  the  will  of  God.  In  so  far  as  these  relations  are 
thus  determined  and  God  does  have  his  way,  the  kingdom  of 
God  has  come,  and  his  will  is  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven. 
In  so  far  as  this  is  not  yet  true,  the  kingdom  has  yet  to  come, 
and  may  be  promoted  by  any  man’s  endeavour. 

The  Christian  doctrine  of  God  in  his  relations  with  men  is 
not  complete  until  he  has  been  presented  as  a  God  who  has 
such  a  kingdom  as  this  in  the  world,  and  is  seeking  to  make 
it  perfect.  He  seeks  to  permeate  the  large  life  of  mankind 
with  the  principles  that  correspond  to  his  character.  This 
endeavour  is  the  natural  fulfilment  of  his  creative  purpose, 
and  of  his  redeeming  love  revealed  in  Christ.  All  that  op¬ 
poses  or  resists  this  endeavour  is  hateful  to  him,  and  not  less 
because  he  is  patient,  bearing  with  it  till  it  can  be  overcome. 
All  social  good  is  his,  in  all  the  world:  all  social  wrong, 
injustice,  frivolity,  falseness,  greed,  base  passion,  unbrother- 
liness,  he  hates.  His  reign  is  not  solely  in  the  personal  life, 
nor  is  the  saving  of  individuals  the  whole  of  his  gracious  work. 
He  is  intent  upon  putting  away  the  evils  that  afflict  and  cor¬ 
rupt  humanity  in  groups  and  masses.  From  the  many  hells 
of  this  life  he  is  seeking  to  save.  He  is  the  God  of  social 
righteousness  and  brotherhood,  of  justice  and  love  among  men. 
Demands  for  these  are  his  demands,  sin  against  these  is  sin 
against  him,  and  service  to  these  is  his  service.  The  extension 
of  the  mind  of  Christ  is  his  means  of  answering  the  prayer, 
‘‘Thy  will  be  done.”  Any  church  that  would  represent  him 
worthily  must  devote  itself  alike  to  the  saving  of  individ¬ 
uals  and  the  promotion  of  the  social  kingdom.  To  neglect 
either  object  is  to  fall  out  of  his  fellowship.  This  quick  and 
powerful  conception  of  the  God  of  universal  morality  is  just 
as  essential  to  the  Christian  doctrine  as  any  view  of  him  that 
maybe  accounted  more  doctrinal  or  more  technically  religious, 
for  in  this  manner  God  is  in  human  life,  seeking  actually  to 
become  the  Lord  of  all  men  and  all  their  doings. 


III.  GOD  AND  THE  UNIVERSE 


1.  MONOTHEISM 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  already  laid  down,  we 
now  proceed  from  the  circle  of  human  relations  to  the  vaster 
concentric  circle  of  relations  between  God  and  the  universe. 
Of  course  it  is  true  that  man  is  a  part  of  the  universe,  and  has 
to  do  with  God  in  the  relations  that  are  yet  to  be  considered. 
To  this  extent  the  classification  may  be  criticised;  neverthe¬ 
less,  the  distinction  is  a  proper  one,  and  a  helpful  one  also. 
It  is  in  human  life  that  we  know  God  as  Father,  Saviour, 
Friend:  it  is  in  his  relation  to  universal  existence  that  we 
contemplate  him  as  Self-existent,  Transcendent,  Omnipres¬ 
ent.  Following  the  order  that  corresponds  to  the  nature  of 
Christianity,  we  proceed  from  that  which  our  own  life  has 
taught  us,  to  that  larger  sphere  in  which  our  own  life,  with  all 
other  being,  is  embraced.  This  method  is  reasonable,  for 
we  begin  with  what  we  know  best,  and  advance  to  that  which 
is  less  known.  We  begin  also  with  what  is  most  surely 
interpretative;  for  character  gives  more  light  upon  universal 
relations  than  universal  relations  give  upon  character,  and  in 
the  relations  of  God  with  men  character  is  the  determinative 
element.  So  our  first  study  provides  us  with  light  for  our 
second. 

Although  the  method  is  sometimes  distrusted,  it  is  really  a 
great  advantage  to  Christianity  as  a  teacher  of  Theism  that 
its  doctrine  of  God  has  a  basis  in  the  familiar  region  of  vital 
and  serious  experience.  Under  the  Christian  influence  we 
learn  to  think  of  God  as  rational,  moral,  spiritual,  personal; 
and  thinking  thus  of  him  we  go  out  to  study  him  in  universal 
relations.  There  are  many  who  feel  on  scientific  grounds 
that  they  must  search  the  universe  for  God  without  having 
personality  and  moral  significance  first  in  mind.  But  we  are 
thankful  not  to  feel  thus,  for  certainly  in  searching  the  universe 

265 


266 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


for  the  Supreme  Mind  we  are  entitled  to  start  from  the  high¬ 
est  ground  that  human  experience  has  reached.  The  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  puts  the  right  things  first,  and  leads  on  with  all 
the  confidence  that  religion  imparts.  We  need  not  distrust 
our  method,  but  may  be  thankful  that  when  we  go  forth 
searching  for  knowledge  of  God  in  the  regions  beyond,  the 
Founder  of  Christianity  leads  us  out  from  the  Father^s  house, 
where  we  have  begun  to  be  acquainted  with  him  for  whom 
we  seek. 

In  this  region  the  soleness  or  singleness  of  God  is  the  first 
fact  with  which  we  have  to  deal.  The  Christian  doctrine  of 
God  as  it  is  offered  to  us  to-day  is  the  purest  and  broadest 
Monotheism.  Islam  has  claimed  to  be  the  most  genuine 
monotheism  in  the  world,  and  has  founded  its  claim  of 
superiority  to  Christianity  in  this  respect  mainly  upon  its 
understanding  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  but 
the  Christian  faith  holds  a  richer  and  truer  monotheism  by  far. 
Only  by  misunderstanding  is  it  supposed  to  hold  doctrine  in¬ 
consistent  with  a  positive  and  uncompromising  spiritual  mono¬ 
theism.  No  other  religion  has  ever  risen  to  such  affirmation 
of  the  unity  and  soleness  of  God,  in  terms  suited  to  any  and 
every  stage  of  human  knowledge.  Monotheism  is  the  natural 
doctrine  when  the  natural  order  is  well  understood,  and  it  is 
the  Christian  doctrine. 

That  which  monotheism  supersedes  and  renders  impossible 
is  polytheism.  Monotheism  affirms  one  divine  Being,  will 
and  administration :  polytheism  believes  in  many  superhuman 
wills,  acting  in  many  limited  administrations  of  affairs. 
Polytheism  came  naturally  into  the  world  in  the  early  days 
of  humanity.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  powers  of  nature, 
so  real  and  seemingly  so  distinct,  were  idealiz-ed  into  person¬ 
ality  and  deified  in  popular  religion,  or  that  natural  objects, 
as  the  sun  and  moon,  were  worshipped.  Nor  is  it  surprising 
that  legends  of  gieatness  gathered  around  famous  men,  so 
that  in  course  of  time  they  were  regarded  as  more  than  human. 
By  such  processes  superhuman  beings  and  forces  came  to  be 


MONOTHEISM 


267 


present  in  great  numbers  to  human  wonder  and  reverence, 
and  the  impulse  to  worship  was  called  out  by  innumerable 
objects.  The  processes  were  long  and  persistent,  and  the 
array  of  gods  tended  ever  to  increase.  Every  place  and  thing 
and  practice  may  come  to  have  its  deity. 

Yet  polytheism  is  not  the  most  natural  form  of  religion, 
nor  is  it  certain  that  it  was  the  earliest.  That  which  first 
evoked  religious  feeling  in  infant  humanity  may  not  have 
been  some  separate  power  of  nature,  or  some  wonderful 
object,  as  the  heavens  or  the  sun.  It  is  quite  as  probable  that 
the  sense  of  something  more  than  human  in  the  world  as  a 
whole  was  borne  in  upon  the  observing  spirit,  before  any 
separate  part  was  recognized  as  fit  to  receive  worship.  The 
total  effect  of  the  sum  of  things  observed,  the  sense  of  finding 
himself  in  a  world  mysterious  and  greater  than  himself,  may 
well  have  been  the  provocative  that  stirred  man  to  religion. 
This  seems  the  more  natural  order.  It  is  more  probable  that 
polytheism  came  by  differentiation  of  broad  religious  feeling 
than  that  it  was  the  earliest  method  in  religion. 

It  might  seem  that  polytheism  in  any  form  must  necessarily 
break  up  all  religious  unity,  and  be  fatal  to  all  sense  of 
singkness  in  religion  and  in  the  world.  But  so  it  has  not 
proved.  Beneath  the  endless  variety  of  polytheism  there  has 
often  been  a  deep  sense  of  the  singleness  and  unity  of  the 
divine.  Doubtless  this  conception  of  oneness  has  been  rather 
intellectual  than  religious,  and  has  taken  effect  in  an  under¬ 
lying  sense  of  things  rather  than  in  modes  of  worship;  never¬ 
theless  polytheism  is  not  justly  interpreted  without  recogni¬ 
tion  of  this  tendency  to  be  aware  of  an  underlying  divine 
unity.  One  divine,  many  times  and  ways  expressed — this 
has  been  the  thought.  So  it  is  in  India,  where  the  vastest 
polytheism  that  the  world  has  known  is  accompanied  by  a 
profound  philosophy  of  unity.  There  is  no  reason  why  these 
companion-ideas,  of  unity  in  the  divine  and  multiplicity  in 
its  expression,  should  not  be  strong  together.  Both  are 
natural.  The  recognition  of  unity  is  so  natural  as  to  look 
out  through  all  the  multiplicity  of  the  polytheism. 


268 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


But  the  unity,  when  the  two  are  combined,  is  not  that  of 
monotheism.  The  tendency  is  rather  to  a  pantheistic  con¬ 
ception  of  oneness.  One  might  suppose  that  the  personal 
element  so  prominent  in  the  polytheistic  idea  of  gods  was  sure 
to  dominate,  so  that  monotheism  would  be  reached,  by  the 
exaltation  of  one  personal  deity  and  the  elimination  of  the 
many.  But  the  tendency  to  a  pantheistic  view  seems  more 
natural.  In  polytheism  the  demand  for  personality  seems 
to  be  satisfied  in  the  acknowledgement  of  the  many  deities. 
In  these  there  is  personality  enough  and  to  spare,  and  the 
underlying  divine,  expressed  in  these  many,  tends  to  be  re¬ 
garded  as  impersonal.  What  indeed  can  that  divine  be, 
which  is  expressed  in  so  many  personal  deities,  except  a 
quality,  or  some  impersonal  kind  of  being?  The  hope  that 
polytheistic  religion  will  work  out  by  its  own  impulse  into  a 
vital  monotheistic  faith  has  never  yet  been  realized,  and 
seems  likely  never  to  come  true.  The  natural  tendencies 
in  the  other  direction  are  too  strong. 

The  Hebrew  doctrine  of  God  grew  up  out  of  polytheism, 
for  the  fathers  had  their  many  gods.  It  was  not  a  philosoph¬ 
ical  doctrine,  but  an  outgrowth  of  moral  and  religious  life. 
It  appears  to  have  passed  through  the  henotheistic  stage, 
affirming  one  God  for  Israel  while  there  were  other  gods  for 
other  peoples;  but  under  the  influence  of  the  prophets  it 
became  a  doctrine  of  genuine  monotheism,  affirming  one 
God  alone  existing.  It  was  not  merely  an  ordinary  develop¬ 
ment  from  the  polytheism  of  early  days,  but  was  rather  a 
reaction  against  it.  It  came  from  those  deep  and  inspiring 
insights  of  the  best  men  that  so  well  deserve  the  name  of 
revelation.  The  living  God  was  manifesting  himself  to  men 
who  could  discern  him.  It  was  in  the  ethical  life  and  the 
life  of  religion  that  the  conviction  of  the  divine  unity  was 
borne  in.  God  was  conceived  as  bearing  the  qualities  that 
we  call  personal,  and  as  having  such  character  as  to  command 
a  reverence  and  loyalty  such  as  no  deity  had  ever  obtained. 
He  was  conceived  as  living,  knowing,  loving,  desiring,  pur- 


MONOTHEISM 


269 


posing,  directing  his  own  action,  and  influential  upon  the 
affairs  of  men.  It  was  a  doctrine  of  divine  unity  that  stood 
in  contrast  to  everything  pantheistic:  it  was  a  true  monothe¬ 
ism,  a  doctrine  of  one  personal  God.  Monotheism  is  con¬ 
trasted  with  polytheism  in  affirming  the  unity  of  the  divine, 
and  with  pantheism  in  affirming  the  personality.  The 
Hebrew  doctrine  proclaimed  both. 

The  Christian  doctrine  continued  the  life  of  the  Hebrew. 
From  the  beginning  it  assumed,  with  no  effort  to  prove 
it,  the  reality  of  God  as  absolutely  sole  and  alone,  filling 
the  whole  conception  covered  by  the  name,  with  no  other 
God  actual,  possible  or  conceivable  in  the  field  of  being. 
All  that  God  can  be,  its  one  God  is.  His  relation  as 
God  is  a  relation  to  absolutely  all  existence  that  is  not 
himself.  All  that  he  is,  whether  in  character,  in  power  or 
in  actual  relations,  he  is  through  the  entire  range  of  exist¬ 
ence,  whether  spatial  or  temporal.  This  statement,  though 
couched  in  terms  that  early  Christian  utterance  did  not 
know,  well  represents  God  as  early  Christian  faith  and 
thought  discerned  him. 

Such  a  monotheistic  conception  as  this  is  evidently  expansi¬ 
ble,  and  is  naturally  destined  to  be  expanded  as  human 
knowledge  is  enlarged.  It  is  suited  to  any  conception  of  the 
extent  of  existence.  With  any  enlargement  in  the  range  of 
knowledge  it  does  not  change  its  character,  but  only  its  extent. 
When  knowledge  was  practically  limited  to  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  as  the  eye  beholds  them,  monotheism  affirmed,  as  in 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  that  one  intelligent  and  creative 
God  sustained  one  relation  to  all  that  heavens  and  earth  were, 
and  all  that  they  contained.  However  the  conception  of  the 
extent  of  existence  might  become  enlarged,  monotheism  con¬ 
tinued  the  same  declaration.  When  modern  modes  of  dis¬ 
covery  extended  the  range  of  known  existence  immeasurably 
beyond  all  human  power  of  imagining,  and  revealed  besides 
a  fulness  and  variety  that  renders  every  part  as  wonderful  as 
the  whole,  still  monotheism  uttered  the  same  great  word, 
and  that  word  sufficed.  Monotheism  affirms  to-day  that  one 


270 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


conscious  and  intelligent  Being  holds  the  place  and  relation 
of  God  toward  all  existence,  is  all  that  God  can  be,  and 
signifies  all  that  God  can  signify.  This  the  Christian  doctrine 
has  always  asserted,  and  this  it  now  asserts. 

Such  monotheism  is  the  only  theism  that  can  exist  in  power 
where  the  Christian  faith  has  done  its  work.  It  is  needless  to 
say  that  the  influence  of  Jesus  is  fatal  to  all  polytheism,  when 
once  it  has  its  way.  It  is  true  that  in  Christian  history  pagan 
ideas  inherited  from  older  time  were  long  in  dying,  and 
results  from  ancient  polytheism  were  long  lingering  in  the 
common  mind.  Not  even  yet  is  all  such  influence  extinct. 
But  the  spiritual  world  of  Christian  faith  really  has  place  for 
the  One  who  is  God  alone,  and  for  no  other.  As  Christian 
thought  advances  toward  completeness  and  consistency, 
whatever  is  out  of  harmony  with  pure  monotheism,  and  the 
broadest  monotheism  that  can  be  conceived,  must  retire, 
never  to  return.  This  statement  is  not  less  true  in  connection 
with  the  ethical  dualism  which  the  moral  perplexities  of  life 
have  suggested.  The  divided  field  and  the  bitter  conflict 
of  good  and  evil  have  often  been  accounted  for  by  belief  in 
rival  powers,  sometimes  regarded  as  equal,  sometimes  as 
almost  equal  but  with  preponderance  of  the  good.  The 
suggestion  of  sucli  a  dualism  was  natural  once,  but  is  impos¬ 
sible  now  in  the  Christian  light.  The  Christian  monotheism 
is  too  strong.  However  great  the  moral  difficulties  in  the 
doctrine  of  one  God,  they  are  not  to  be  removed  by  denying 
the  sound  and  final  conviction  of  universal  unity.  Though 
clouds  and  darkness  be  around  him,  God  is  one.  There  is 
deeper  darkness  in  denying  it. 

It  is  equally  true  that  such  monotheism  is  the  only  theism 
that  is  possible  in  the  world  where  modern  knowledge  is 
influential  in  religious  thought.  The  oneness  of  the  world 
has  expanded  into  the  oneness  of  the  universe,  and  the  unity 
of  the  vaster  whole  is  far  plainer  and  more  impressive  than 
the  unity  of  the  lesser  whole  ever  was.  No  thought  of  division 
is  ever  to  enter  hereafter.  The  unity  of  the  universe  dictates 


MONOTHEISM 


271 


belief  in  the  singleness  of  the  power  that  controls  it.  If  any 
God  is  to  be  believed  in,  it  must  be  one  God  in  all.  Here 
the  Christian  doctrine  is  finely  in  harmony  with  modern 
knowledge.  Jesus  has  given  us  a  living  confidence  in  God  as 
One,  and  is  for  all  ages  a  powerful  sustainer  of  monotheistic 
faith.  The  religious  inspiration  that  we  owe  to  him  enables 
us  to  maintain  the  divine  oneness  in  the  face  of  the  immensity 
of  the  universe,  and  of  its  moral  perplexities  as  well.  Chris¬ 
tianity  dooms  all  polytheism,  and  all  practical  dualism,  to 
banishment  from  its  field,  for  it  is  a  living  faith  in  one  only 
God.  But  while  this  faith  has  been  coming  toward  maturity, 
modern  thought  has  been  maturing  also,  and  has  reached  a 
conception  of  the  universe  that  confirms  the  Christian  claim. 
The  present  view  of  the  unity  of  the  universe  is  monotheistic 
to  the  core.  In  its  earlier  stages  it  may  be  suggestive  of 
pantheism,  but  the  facts  that  support  it  are  premises  for  a 
monotheistic  conclusion  and  for  no  other,  and  in  its  maturity 
the  modern  view  of  existence  is  sure  to  proclaim  the  one  God 
alone. 

It  has  always  been  easy  to  make  monotheism  too  much  a 
negative  doctrine.  “There  is  only  one  God,”  is  the  form 
in  which  the  claim  is  often  made,  and  the  great  assertion  still 
sounds  too  much  like  a  polemic  against  polytheism.  But  a 
negative  or  defensive  monotheism  is  not  the  doctrine  of  power, 
and  is  not  the  full  Christian  doctrine.  Power  awaits  the 
assertion  of  the  positive  monotheism  with  all  its  meaning. 
“There  is  one  God,  in  all  and  over  all:  there  is  One,  who  to 
all  the  universe  is  all  that  God  can  be:  there  is  One  God, 
whom  it  is  life  to  know” — this  is  the  monotheism  that 
the  Christian  doctrine  embodies.  Sound  Theism  not  only 
denies  the  existence  of  the  many,  but  insists  upon  the 
reality  of  the  One;  and  this  part  of  its  teaching  should  be 
at  the  front. 


272 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


2.  THE  TWO  UNITS  OF  EXISTENCE 

The  one  God  is  not  alone.  We  have  no  occasion  to  speak 
or  think  of  him  in  a  solitary  existence,  for  though  we  may 
talk  of  him  thus,  we  have  no  power  to  conceive  of  God  existing 
by  himself,  and  we  should  mislead  ourselves  if  we  imagined 
that  we  could  form  clear  thoughts  or  valid  judgments  in  that 
region.  We  know  that  in  fact  God  is  not  alone,  but  is 
accompanied  in  existence  by  an  immense  mass  of  being 
which  we  call  the  universe. 

Here,  as  often  happens,  we  must  own  that  we  are  using 
language  that  we  cannot  well  define.  For  us  mystery  runs 
back  to  the  uttermost.  What  we  mean  by  reality,  or  even 
by  existence,  we  may  not  be  able  to  make  entirely  clear. 
What  it  is  for  anything  to  exist  we  may  not  be  able  to  tell 
in  unambiguous  terms,  and  of  the  manner  or  sense  in  which 
the  universe  exists  we  may  offer  various  expositions.  But 
the  broad  popular  statement  that  the  universe  exists  is  not 
to  be  set  aside  as  useless  or  misleading  because  our  theories 
of  existence  are  conflicting  or  uncertain.  The  statement  is 
true.  The  one  eternal  Being  is  not  alone,  but  is  accompanied 
in  existence  by  something  that  must  be  distinguished  from 
himself. 

If  we  attempt  to  give  account  of  that  which  accompanies 
God  in  existence,  we  can  say  some  things  confidently,  at 
least  in  popular  language.  The  universe  is  partly  material, 
as  we  understand  the  word,  and  partly  spiritual:  in  part  it 
is  unconscious,  and  in  part  conscious.  It  is  vaster  than  we 
can  know,  and  complex  beyond  all  our  imagining.  In 
proportion  to  our  mental  capacity,  it  seems  infinite.  Whether 
it  actually  is  infinite  in  extent,  or  has  limits,  we  may  never 
know,  though  both  observation  and  reasoning  are  always 
tempting  us  toward  a  conclusion.  Probably  physicists  are 
more  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  finite,  and  philosophers  that  it  is 
infinite.  It  includes  what  we  know  as  matter,  energy,  life 


THE  TWO  UNITS  OF  EXISTENCE 


273 


and  spirit,  all  in  amount  that  far  transcends  our  power  to 
conceive.  It  is  a  system,  as  we  have  good  reason  to  think, 
and  its  methods  and  operations,  so  far  as  our  observation  has 
gone,  prove  intelligible  to  human  rational  powers. 

According  to  the  Christian  conception,  the  universe  stands 
in  existence  over  against  God,  and  God  over  against  the 
universe.  In  existence  there  are  two,  God  and  that  which  is 
not  God.  The  two  are  not  identical,  and  the  two  names  are 
not  names  for  one  reality.  God  is  one,  and  the  universe  is 
another.  Its  entire  body  of  vastness  and  complexity  forms 
the  second  unit  of  existence.  Of  ultimate  units  of  existence 
there  are  two,  and  no  more.  There  cannot  be  more,  but 
there  are  two — God  and  that  which  is  not  God,  or  God  and 
the  universe. 

This  has  been  implied  all  along,  in  what  has  been  said 
of  God.  He  has  been  represented  as  a  Spirit  possessed  of  a 
completeness  corresponding  to  the  constitution  that  we  know 
as  personal.  We  are  compelled  to  attribute  to  him  a  self- 
consciousness  and  a  self-determination.  But  if  he  possesses 
these,  he  is  thereby  a  Being  who  is  not  identical  with  anything 
outside  his  self-consciousness  and  self-determination.  If  he 
produces  something,  or  brings  something  into  existence,  or 
something  exists  because  of  his  existence  and  activity,  that 
something  may  be  ever  so  closely  associated  with  himself, 
but  it  will  not  be  himself.  The  Being  in  whom  will,  char¬ 
acter  and  power  inhere  cannot  well  be  the  universe,  nor  can 
the  universe  be  he,  or  a  part  of  him.  The  God  of  whom  the 
Christian  doctrine  speaks,  and  all  clear  theism  with  it,  must 
be  one  unit  of  existence,  and  the  universe  must  be  another. 

Upon  this  distinction  between  God  and  the  universe,  or 
the  existence  not  only  of  God  but  of  that  which  is  not  God, 
the  Christian  doctrine  has  always  strongly  insisted,  and  must 
continue  to  insist.  The  relation  between  the  two  may  be 
defined  in  whatever  terms  the  knowledge  of  an  age  may  make 
most  true  and  tenable,  but  the  distinction  itself  belongs  to  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  faith.  Pantheistic  thought 
identifies  God  and  the  universe.  It  recognizes  only  a  single 


274 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


unit  of  existence,  or  one  substance,  of  which  the  universe 
is  the  expression.  Consequently  all  the  God  that  it  recog¬ 
nizes  is  the  sum  of  existence,  viewed  with  reference  to  its 
order  and  significance;  the  universe  in  its  higher  meaning. 
Such  a  doctrine  of  course  finds  no  personality  in  God,  and 
no  distinctness :  it  gives  him  no  separate  existence,  but  binds 
him  in  with  the  universe.  In  fact,  it  knows  him  only  as  an 
inference  from  what  we  know  of  the  universe.  Christianity 
has  always  held  a  radically  different  view  of  God  from  this. 
The  ancient  ethical  conception  handed  on  by  Jesus  and 
embodied  in  the  Christian  doctrine  presents  a  God  who  is 
not  the  world,  and  a  world  that  is  not  God.  The  whole 
system  of  religion  for  which  Christianity  stands  implies  a 
God  with  whom  the  universe  cannot  be  identified.  It  con¬ 
ceives  of  God  in  terms  of  personality:  it  assumes  in  him  a 
consciousness,  a  will  and  a  heart:  it  addresses  him  as  One 
with  whom  man  can  hold  genuine  converse,  and  whose  will 
man  can  do  or  reject.  This  is  a  most  vital  point  in  the 
nature  of  Christianity,  not  only  in  its  historic  forms  but  in 
its  substance  and  its  claims  for  the  future.  The  Christian 
faith  cannot  abandon  the  conviction  that  God  is  himself, 
and  that  in  a  true  sense  the  universe  is  other  than  he. 

Nevertheless,  the  distinction  and  difference  between  the 
two  units  of  existence  is  by  no  means  all  that  we  must  affirm. 
We  have  to  confess  that  clear  language  here,  if  we  yield  to  the 
necessity  of  using  it,  is  too  clear  to  do  justice  to  the  reality. 
It  sounds  as  if  we  were  disclaiming  the  vagueness  that  attends 
the  essential  mystery.  But  in  truth  the  relation  between  God 
and  the  universe  can  never  be  clearly  defined.  Through 
some  divine  process  that  we  shall  never  understand,  the 
second  unit  is  perpetually  deriving  from  the  first  its  existence, 
its  order  and  its  significance.  On  the  other  hand,  to  God 
the  universe  is  an  organ  for  perpetual  self-expression.  In  it 
he  lives  his  forthgoing  and  self-manifesting  fife.  No  illustra¬ 
tion  can  ever  set  all  this  forth;  but  if  we  were  to  say  that 
God  is  the  soul  and  the  universe  is  to  him  as  a  body,  we 
should  be  doing  far  better  justice  to  the  truth  than  if  we 


THE  TWO  UNITS  OF  EXISTENCE 


275 


spoke  of  the  two  as  distinct  and  different  from  each  other, 
making  no  attempt  to  illustrate  their  connection.  The  union 
of  the  thinking  spirit  with  the  body  which  is  its  organ  of  ex¬ 
pression  comes  nearer  than  anything  else  that  we  know  to 
illustrating  the  indescribable  relation  between  God  and  the 
universe.  It  is  no  more  explainable  than  the  infinite  mystery, 
but  it  is  familiar  to  us,  and  helpful  by  its  familiarity.  In  and 
through  that  which  is  not  himself  God  is  always  exercising 
his  power,  love  and  wisdom.  In  it  he  is  always  maintaining 
life  from  his  own  inexhaustible  fulness.  For  the  realization 
of  his  will  he  is  always  putting  it  to  use.  No  part  of  it  is  ever 
uninfluenced  by  his  will  or  his  affection.  The  universe  is 
not  himself,  but  it  is  so  closely  and  deeply  united  to  himself 
as  to  be  the  organ  by  which  he  goes  forth  to  the  action  that  is 
characteristic  of  his  nature. 

It  is  in  some  such  way  as  this  that  the  Christian  doctrine 
does  justice  to  the  conditions  that  have  so  often  suggested 
Pantheism.  It  keeps  in  sight  the  union — not  the  identity — 
of  the  universe  with  God.  While  it  distinguishes  between 
God  and  the  universe,  it  beholds  them  existing  together  in  so 
indistinguishable  a  union  that  one  cannot  tell  where  is  the 
line  between,  any  more  than  one  can  find  the  union-point  of 
soul  and  body.  It  is  true  that  Christianity  has  not  yet 
worked  through  its  problem  of  dealing  with  pantheistic 
thought,  and  its  statements  on  the  subject  must  represent 
unfinished  work.  Pantheistic  thought  has  often  offered  itself 
temptingly  within  the  field  of  Christianity  itself.  Sometimes 
it  has  entered  by  way  of  reaction.  Christian  teaching  has 
unjustly  represented  the  world  as  essentially  evil,  and  un¬ 
inhabitable  by  God,  and  has  often  portrayed  God  as  prac¬ 
tically  outside  the  world.  Its  affirmation  of  its  own  truth  of 
Omnipresence  has  often  been  only  formal  and  ineffective. 
So  sometimes  there  has  been  a  feeling  that  pantheism  brings 
the  divine  nearer  than  Christian  thought,  and  makes  it  actually 
more  available,  even  though  the  personal  conception  be 
wanting.  Living  pantheistic  thought  in  India,  with  which 
Christianity  is  just  becoming  acquainted,  considers  the 


i 


276 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


doctrine  of  a  personal  God  inferior  to  its  own,  less  inspiring 
and  less  consoling.  Yet  the  Christian  doctrine  brings  God 
as  near  to  man  as  does  the  doctrine  that  makes  man  a  part 
of  him,  and  offers  the  blessing  of  a  living  Father,  which  pan¬ 
theism  knows  not.  It  offers  the  wealth  of  divine  personality 
and  the  glory  of  holiness  and  love,  and  fully  equals  pantheism 
in  its  assertion  of  the  greatness,  fulness  and  nearness  of  the 
divine.  This  breadth  and  richness  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
must  be  insisted  upon.  No  narrow  or  provincial  view  of 
God  under  the  Christian  name  can  displace  the  pantheistic 
impressions  that  come  so  easily.  Pantheism  challenges 
Christianity  to  make  the  most  of  its  monotheism.  This  is 
the  strength  and  glory  of  the  Christian  faith,  that  its  mono¬ 
theism  is  a  gospel.  Its  monotheism  is  the  universal  dominion 
of  the  One,  and  the  One  is  he  whom  the  Christian  vision 
beholds  in  the  light  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  confidence  and 
joy  that  the  divine  character  inspires,  Christianity  proclaims 
the  one  living  God  as  the  hope  of  the  universe. 

3.  “GOD  IS  A  SPIRIT” 

One  of  the  two  units  of  existence  is  a  Spirit.  The  other 
includes  spirits  innumerable,  and  has  a  spiritual  movement 
and  end,  but  is  not  a  spirit  itself.  That  God  is  a  Spirit  is 
one  of  the  ancient  words  of  the  Christian  religion,  always 
held  fast  in  its  doctrine  and  precious  in  its  life.  As  we  have 
said  elsewhere,  it  is:n6t  probable  that  this  word  in  the  New 
Testament  was  intended  to  describe  God  in  contrast  with 
matter:  it  was  rather  designed  to  present  him  in  his  avail¬ 
ableness  to  the  human  spirit,  as  a  Father  to  be  worshipped  in 
spirit  and  truth,  and  found  wherever  the  human  spirit  sought 
him  (Jn.  iv.  21-24).  In  this  region  lies  the  richness  and  value 
of  the  Christian  idea  of  God  as  a  Spirit,  and  from  this  point  all 
Christian  use  of  the  idea  proceeds.  In  unfolding  the  Christian 
doctrine  it  is  no  part  of  our  task  to  explain  the  difference  be¬ 
tween  matter  and  spirit,  and  show  in  what  metaphysical  sense 
the  name  spirit  belongs  to  God.  For  this  we  may  be  thankful. 


GOD  IS  A  SPIRIT 


277 


ff 


for  at  present  no  one  can  define  matter  and  spirit:  that  defini¬ 
tion  is  for  the  future,  if  indeed  it  lies  within  human  reach  at 
all.  If  it  turn  out,  as  it  may,  that  matter  is  only  a  form  or 
manifestation  of  what  w^e  know  as  spirit,  then  all  the  more 
needless  will  discussion  of  the  difference  be  in  the  doctrine 
of  God.  Nevertheless  what  is  commonly  meant  by  spirit, 
and  by  a  spirit,  differs  radically  from  what  is  commonly  meant 
by  matter,  and  the  difference  is  permanent;  and  the  Christian 
doctrine  affirms  that  one  of  the  two  units  of  existence  is  a 
Being  whom  spiritual  beings  known  to  us  resemble. 

We  do  well  to  note  how  humanly  intelligible  is  this  word 
concerning  God.  What  we  know  of  the  nature  of  a  spirit 
we  know  from  ourselves.  Here  again  in  our  knowledge  of 
God  we  profit  by  the  fact  that  we  were  created  in  his  likeness, 
and  we  should  not  fear  to  claim  the  benefit  of  this  enlighten¬ 
ment.  We  pass  by  all  shadowy  conceptions  of  what  a  spirit 
is,  and  say  at  once  that  the  word  denotes  in  God,  as  in  us,  a 
being  possessed  of  intelligence,  will  and  affection.  A  spirit 
is  a  self-directing  actor.  When  the  Christian  doctrine  calls 
God  a  Spirit,  it  means  that  he  is  a  God  who  knows  and  under¬ 
stands,  a  God  who  acts,  putting  himself  forth  in  endless  and 
varied  working,  and  a  God  of  character.  God  the  Spirit  is 
the  living  God  of  rational  and  spiritual  powers,  conscious, 
active,  affectional,  ethical.  Into  ^his  definition,  in  fact, 
enters  all  that  was  said  in  the  first  part  of  this  book  concerning 
God,  in  respect  of  personality  and  character.  His  personality 
and  character  have  been  illustrated  in  hti  relations  with  men, 
and  now  they  must  be  affirmed  again  in  those  comprehensive 
relations  that  are  as  wide  as  all  existence  that  is  not  himself. 

Christianity  does  not  borrow  this  conception  of  God  as  a 
Spirit  from  science  or  philosophy,  or  learn  it  first  by  study  in 
their  fields.  The  idea  finds  confirmation  there,  but  did  not 
there  originate,  for  it  is  older  than  science  or  philosophy. 
Nor  is  it  peculiar  to  the  Christian  doctrine.  It  is  a  character¬ 
istic  conception  of  religion,  and  as  a  fruit  of  religious  discern¬ 
ment  it  enters  into  Christian  thought.  From  the  very  begin¬ 
ning  it  has  been  of  the  common  stock  of  religious  convictions. 


278 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


That  the  invisible  divine  is  of  the  nature  of  a  spirit,  with 
thought,  will,  action  and  character,  is  the  certainty  with 
which  religion  began.  Whether  the  divine  be  one  or  many, 
it  has  will  and  character  and  stands  in  living  relations  with 
men — this  is  the  very  starting-point  of  religion,  and  religion 
has  never  lost  this  indispensable  conviction.  Indispensable  it 
is,  and  religion  loses  its  quality  if  it  fades  away.  Religion 
advancing  to  its  height  and  fulness  is  simply  growing  clearer 
and  more  worthy  in  its  use  of  this  first  truth.  Christianity 
affirms  this  truth  in  its  utmost  greatness,  declaring  that  there 
is  One,  and  only  One,  in  whom  are  perfect  mind,  will, 
affection,  action,  character.  The  vastness  of  this  utterance, 
and  of  the  field  in  which  it  must  be  true  if  it  is  true  at  all,  does 
not  deter  Christianity  from  proclaiming  it  with  confidence. 
Rather  is  the  vastness  a  proper  accompaniment  of  such  a 
truth,  and  a  commendation  of  it,  not  a  reason  for  doubt. 

It  may  perhaps  seem  necessary  to  offer  some  detailed  ac¬ 
count  of  the  qualities  that  are  ascribed  to  God  when  he  is 
said  to  be  a  spirit;  but  the  necessity  is  less  than  it  may 
appear  to  be.  God  is  the  object  of  boundless  curiosity  and 
consequent  inquiry,  but  satisfaction  of  the  curiosity  is  not 
indispensable  to  the  Christian  doctrine.  Only  broad  state¬ 
ments  are  possible,  and  only  what  is  possible  is  necessary. 
We  cannot  say  much  more  by  way  of  description  than  that 
the  intellectual  action  of  God  as  a  spirit  is  that  of  the  (perfect 
mind,  the  voluntary  action  is  that  of  the  perfect  will,  and  the 
moral  action  is  that  of  the  perfect  character.  That  we  cannot 
describe  what  this  broad  statement  contains  will  give  us 
neither  surprise  nor  dismay,  when  we  are  aware  of  our  un¬ 
changeable  limitations.  We  cannot  expect  to  know  all  that 
our  words  mean  when  we  speak  of  the  perfect  Being,  but  we 
need  not  therefore  hesitate  to  affirm  the  reality  of  such  a 
Being.  No  spirit  but  himself  can  comprehend  him,  but  there 
lives  one  perfect  Spirit,  who  is  God.  So  says  the  Christian 
doctrine. 

This  Christian  affirmation  is  made  as  confidently  in  the 
present  state  of  knowledge  as  in  any  other.  At  present  the 


GOD  IS  A  SPIRIT 


279 


great  visible  fact  is  the  universe,  boundless  to  our  imagination 
even  if  finite  in  itself,  overwhelming  in  its  vastness,  and  incon¬ 
ceivable  in  its  variety,  ordered  by  method  that  seems  inflexible, 
and  apparently  containing  all  that  its  operations  require. 
It  is  not  the  function  of  religion  to  explore  the  universe  and 
learn  what  it  contains,  and  so  it  may  seem  presumptuous 
for  religion  to  say  anything  at  all  about  the  power  by  which 
the  universe  is  maintained  and  directed.  In  the  realm 
where  religion  is  at  home,  theism  and  the  reign  of  spiritual 
forces  might  seem  reasonable  enough  as  interpretation  of 
human  affairs,  but  theism  and  the  reign  of  spiritual  forces 
in  the  universal  sweep  of  existence  may  seem  beyond  the 
right  of  religion  to  affirm.  Nevertheless,  exactly  this  the 
Christian  doctrine  does  affirm.  In  proclaiming  the  one  God 
who  is  a  spirit  it  proclaims  a  universal  doctrine.  It  declares 
that  all  operations  of  the  universe  are  spiritual  in  their  source, 
quality  and  direction;  that  all  that  seems  material  is  serving 
the  ends  of  spirit;  that  the  one  Spirit  pervades,  sustains,  ani¬ 
mates  and  directs  the  whole.  On  the  part  of  Christianity 
this  is  first  a  religious  conviction  and  certainty.  In  the  re¬ 
ligious  realm  it  finds  good  reason  to  believe  in  God;  and 
believing  in  God  it  can  neither  assert  anything  less  than  this 
universal  sway,  nor  doubt  the  truth  of  the  assertion.  It  does 
not  claim  to  have  explored  the  universal  field  and  found  its 
affirmation  proven  by  the  facts  observed,  and  there  are  many 
who  think  that  until  this  has  been  done  it  is  folly  to  say  that 
the  source  and  force  are  spiritual  and  the  God  of  all  is  a  spirit. 
But  the  Christian  doctrine  does  say  just  this,  and  offers  it  as 
a  conclusion  from  facts  known  in  the  field  of  religion;  and 
it  waits  for  science  and  philosophy  to  confirm  what  its  own 
faith  and  insight  declare  to  be  true. 

The  undying  curiosity  concerning  God  includes  a  deep 
desire  to  know  in  what  manner  the  one  living  Spirit  puts  forth 
his  action  upon  oth.er  existence.  How  the  supreme  spirit 
sends  forth  energy  and  organizing  power  upon  the  unfree 
material  creation  is  one  question:  how  the  infinite  spirit 
acts  in  mysterious  relations  with  finite  spirits,  free  but  limited, 


280 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


like  our  own,  is  another.  The  first  question  commands 
eager  intellectual  interest,  and  the  second  presses  hard  upon 
us  when  we  wish  to  solve  the  mysteries  of  our  own  life.  But 
we  cannot  answer  them.  It  is  entirely  correct  to  say  that  we 
cannot  answer  because  the  action  of  the  perfect  mind  lies 
beyond  our  experience,  and  so  beyond  our  understanding. 
Yet  we  do  not  need  this  refuge  for  our  inability,  for  we  have 
one  nearer  home.  Just  how  any  mind  acts  upon  anything 
that  is  not  itself  we  do  not  know.  Spiritual  action  itself,  the 
transfer  of  energy,  the  embodying  of  idea  in  act,  is  in  its  own 
nature  a  mystery  to  us,  and  one  that  we  are  not  likely  to  solve. 
Doubly  then  are  we  exempt  from  the  need  of  embarrassment 
in  our  inability  to  describe  the  action  of  God  the  spirit  upon 
other  existence,  and  not  for  a  moment  need  we  hesitate  to 
affirm  the  fact  because  we  cannot  give  account  of  its  method. 

That  which  most  impresses  us  when  we  reflect  upon  the 
action  of  God,  the  perfect  spirit,  is  the  inconceivable  vastness 
and  variety  of  it.  Even  we  as  spirits  And  much  to  think  of 
and  carry  upon  our  hearts,  and  now  and  then  we  obtain 
swift  and  astonishing  glimpses  of  the  greatness  of  human 
affairs.  Yet  that  which  is  too  great  for  us  is  only  a  drop  in 
the  ocean  of  existence.  We  are  hopelessly  unable  to  com¬ 
prehend  what  it  must  be  for  a  spirit  to  bear  all  existence 
within  his  thought;  yet  that  is  no  reason  why  we  should  ques¬ 
tion  the  welcome  fact  that  it  is  done.  If  we  think  the  Chris¬ 
tian  thought  concerning  God  we  think  tJiat  to  him,  the  perfect 
spirit,  all  existence  is  one  great  enterprise,  borne  upon  his 
mind  and  heart,  understood,  directed.  If  this  language 
sounds  anthropomorphic,  none  the  less  does  it  express  the 
truth. 

Along  with  the  action  of  the  perfect  spirit  goes  of  course 
his  character.  When  the  Christian  doctrine  affirms  that 
the  scope  of  God’s  spiritual  action  is  wide  as  the  universe, 
it  equally  affirms  the  universal  scope  and  activity  of  his 
character.  Concerning  the  character  that  enters  into  the 
operation  of  God  the  spirit,  the  Christian  doctrine  speaks 
with  the  utmost  clearness  and  confidence,  and  its  testimony 


GOD  IS  A  SPIRIT 


281 


it 


relates  to  the  entire  field  of  divine  activity.  It  is  here  that  we 
reach  that  magnificent  conception  of  God  which  Christianity 
is  offering  the  world,  to  be  welcomed  into  the  bosom  of  uni¬ 
versal  thought,  which  waits  the  glory  that  it  will  impart. 
On  the  plane  of  human  life,  where  alone  men  could  observe 
it,  Christianity  has  learned  through  its  Founder  and  through 
other  teachings  the  character  of  God.  It  has  learned  that 
forever  and  everywhere  God  is  holy,  God  is  righteous,  God 
is  love,  worthy  of  the  perfect  confidence  and  affection  of  all 
beings  who  have  power  to  love,  trust  and  be  loyal.  With 
unspeakable  joy  Christian  faith  has  received  this  revelation 
as  true,  and  placed  it  in  the  Christian  doctrine  as  the  revela¬ 
tion  of  a  truth  not  partial  or  temporary  but  universal  and 
eternal.  It  holds  that  Jesus  Christ  simply  revealed  realities 
as  they  are,  and  showed  God  to  men  as  he  really  is.  The 
God  who  is  imperfectly  but  rightly  known  to  men  in  the 
experience  that  Christ  inspires  is  the  living  God,  the  universal 
Spirit,  in  whom  all  live  and  move  and  have  their  being. 
Wherever  he  may  exist  and  be  manifested  in  his  working, 
such  he  is.  The  One  Spirit  may  be  discovered  in  any  and 
every  part  of  existence,  working  in  infinite  variety  of  ways, 
thinking,  acting,  willing,  controlling,  but  the  character  that 
is  borne  by  this  one  and  only  God  is  everywhere  and  always 
that  character  of  love,  holiness  and  wisdom  which  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  ascribes  to  him.  That  vastly  extended  spiritual 
working  which  is  discovered  through  enlargement  of  our 
knowledge  of  the  universe  is  a  working  not  only  of  power  but 
of  character,  and  of  this  character.  Throughout  the  uni¬ 
verse  and  throughout  eternity,  the  one  spirit  who  pervades, 
sustains  and  orders  all  is  the  same  right  and  trustworthy 
Being,  working  in  goodness,  perfectly  deserving  the  confi¬ 
dence  and  love  of  all  moral  beings.  This  is  the  Christian 
doctrine. 

That  this  claim  of  a  perfect  ethical  Spirit  operative  in  all 
existence  must  be  tested  by  comparison  with  facts,  the  Chris- 
tion  doctrine  does  not  forget,  neither  does  it  ignore  the  great¬ 
ness  of  this  undertaking.  Just  as  we  might  expect,  the 


282 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


difficulties  that  attend  so  high  a  claim  are  commensurate  with 
its  greatness.  We  are  not  in  the  region  of  small  issues  here, 
but  of  vast  ones,  where  all  questions  are  great.  To  demon¬ 
strate  the  reality  of  the  One  Spirit,  first  of  the  two  units  of 
existence,  is  impossible;  but  it  is  quite  another  question 
whether  we  may  not  find  good  reason  for  believing  in  it. 
The  Christian  faith  is  a  rational  impulse,  while  the  Christian 
doctrine  is  a  rational  teaching;  and  the  impulse  is  as  sound 
as  the  teaching.  Impulse  and  teaching  alike  are  confident 
in  proclaiming  the  reality  of  the  one  personal  Spirit,  perfectly 
good,  as  the  supreme  fact  of  existence,  and  in  offering  this 
belief  to  all  as  worthy  to  be  received.  This  is  not  the  place 
to  show  the  reasons  for  this  claim,  but  only  to  set  it  forth 
in  its  due  position  in  the  Christian  doctrine.  Before  we 
come  to  the  commendation  of  it  by  evidence,  it  will  already 
have  commended  itself  by  its  harmony  with  the  best  that  we 
know. 


4.  GOD  THE  SOURCE 

The  relation  between  the  two  units  of  existence  is  made 
plain  when  it  is  said  that  one  is  the  source  of  the  other. 
The  second  is  dependent  upon  the  first,  and  is  due  to  the 
causative  or  productive  energy  of  it;  or,  more  definitely  still, 
the  existence  of  the  second  is  due  to  the  will  of  the  first. 
God  is  the  first,  and  the  universe  is  the  second,  and  the 
existence  of  the  universe  is  due  to  the  energy  and  will  of 
God.  All  will  is  as  mysterious  as  it  is  familiar,  but  here  we 
meet  an  element  of  mystery  that  we  do  not  encounter  in  our¬ 
selves.  Human  volition  makes  use  of  energy,  but  never 
originates  it,  and  human  control  over  modes  and  expressions 
of  energy,  though  real,  is  closely  limited.  But  the  infinite 
One  differs  from  us  mysteriously  in  this,  that  he  can  put  forth 
productive  energy:  in  him  it  originates,  and  from  him  pro¬ 
ceeds.  His  will  is  a  creative  will,  accompanied  by  perfect 
power.  Moreover,  it  moves  in  the  realm  of  comprehensive 
and  balanced  intelligence,  which  is  wisdom,  and  acts  out  the 
suggestions  of  the  perfect  character.  At  all  stages  of  its 


GOD  THE  SOURCE 


283 


life  the  Christian  doctrine  has  taught  that  God,  by  voluntary 
action  of  this  sovereign  and  perfect  kind,  has  caused,  and  still 
causes,  the  universe  to  exist.  God  is  the  original,  the  source 
of  all  existence  that  is  not  himself. 

The  usual  expression  of  this  truth  is,  that  God  is  the  Creator 
of  the  universe.  The  words  create,  creator  and  creation 
are  ancient  and  familiar,  and  have  this  peculiarity,  that  they 
usually  suggest  rather  definite  ideas  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
God  has  produced  other  existence,  and  even  as  to  the  time 
at  which  that  work  was  done.  Creation  has  been  conceived 
as  absolute  origination  of  something  when  before  there  had 
been  nothing,  and  as  occurring  at  some  definite  time.  “To 
create  out  of  nothing”  is  a  familiar  phrase,  which  has  only 
too  often  represented  a  kind  of  impression  that  God  created 
something,  with  nothing  as  the  material  out  of  which  it  was 
made.  If  the  phrase  were  used,  of  course  it  ought  to  mean 
only  that  after  nothing  had  been,  something  was  caused  to 
be;  but  the  language  is  misleading  and  unhelpful,  and  it 
would  be  well  if  it  were  forgotten.  But  apart  from  this  mode 
of  speech,  creation  has  been  conceived  as  an  absolute  origina¬ 
tion  of  existence  after  nothing  had  existed,  and  as  occurring 
at  some  particular  moment  of  time.  Such  an  event  of 
course  must  work  a  change  inconceivably  great.  God  was 
alone  in  existence  until  a  given  time,  and  then  brought  the 
universe  into  being.  Thus  regarded,  creation  was  a  temporal 
act,  and  one  that  altered  the  life  of  God,  changing  it  from 
solitude  to  a  state  in  which  he  was  accompanied  by  a  vast  and 
complex  total  of  existence.  Still  further,  until  recently 
Christian  thought  has  generally  regarded  the  time  of  creation 
as  pretty  definitely  known:  when  this  earth  was  created  all 
besides  came  into  being — except  that  angels  were  assumed  to 
exist  already,  and  to  rejoice  in  the  creation — and  that  the 
creation  of  all  occurred  at  a  date  indicated  by  the  chronology 
of  the  book  of  Genesis,  a  few  thousand  years  ago.  Through 
eternity  to  that  date,  or  to  the  creation  of  angels,  God  was 
alone;  since  then  he  has  been  accompanied  in  existence. 


284 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Some  parts  of  his  created  work,  being  of  spiritual  nature,  will 
continue  to  exist  forever,  but  the  material  part,  it  has  been 
predicted,  will  go  out  of  existence  again.  In  company  with 
these  conceptions  it  has  very  naturally  been  thought  that 
God’s  work  of  origination  was  attended  by  work  of  invention 
and  construction,  somewhat  resembling  the  operations  by 
which  men  become  makers  of  things.  Probably  the  work 
of  creation  has  been  more  thoroughly  anthropomorphized 
than  any  other  work  or  relation  attributed  to  God. 

Changes,  however,  have  invaded  this  field  of  thought,  and 
creation  can  no  longer  be  conceived  in  so  pictorial  and 
external  a  manner.  Better  understanding  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  removes  it  from  among  the  witnesses  regarding  times 
and  dates,  and  gives  us  imaginative  representation  in  place 
of  literal  description.  Better  knowledge  of  the  method  of 
the  world  renders  the  old  view  of  creation  untenable.  The 
anthropomorphic  picture  was  too  clear:  we  knew  too  much. 
We  cannot  draw  so  clear  a  picture.  The  mode  of  God’s 
activity  toward  other  existence  must  remain  mysterious  to 
us,  and  how  the  infinite  One  brings  anything  into  being  we 
shall  never  know.  But  we  have  knowledge  enough  to  make 
us  sure  that  we  must  make  room  for  other  ideas  of  creation 
than  those  that  have  usually  borne  the  Christian  name. 
If  we  cannot  attain  to  clear  description,  we  may  be  thankful 
that  much  is  to  be  gained  by  opening  our  minds  to  large 
and  flexible  conceptions.  It  is  in  order  to  assert  only  the 
central  fact  and  avoid  unhelpful  associations  that  the  present 
section  is  entitled  God  the  Source,  instead  of  God  the  Creator. 

For  this  is  all  that  the  Christian  doctrine  has  occasion 
to  affirm  concerning  this  original  relation.  It  does  assert 
that  the  existence  of  God  is  necessary  to  that  of  the  universe, 
while  the  existence  of  the  universe  is  not  necessary  to  that  of 
God.  One  of  the  two  is  self-existent  and  the  other  is  not,  and 
the  one  is  the  source  of  the  other.  Because  of  the  will  and 
work  of  God  the  universe  exists.  The  Christian  doctrine 
does  not  insist  upon  any  account  or  description  of  God’s 
creative  activity,  or  any  theory  of  the  manner  in  which  power 


GOD  THE  SOURCE 


285 


went  forth,  or  goes  forth,  from  him  to  act  upon  that  which 
is  not  himself.  On  these  points  it  has  no  objection  to  agnos¬ 
ticism,  for  it  has  no  means  of  knowing  what  to  proclaim. 
The  method  of  fiat  is  the  natural  one  to  be  represented  in  an 
anthropomorphic  picture.  The  everlasting  truth  of  divine 
origination  was  best  represented,  in  such  an  atmosphere,  by 
the  sublime  formula,  “  God  said,  Let  there  be  light,  and  there 
was  light”  (Gen.  i.  3).  When  something  more  philosophical 
was  desired,  emanation  was  proposed  as  the  method  in  which 
the  universe  came  forth  from  God.  At  present  it  is  common 
to  speak  of  processes,  or  of  one  comprehensive  process, 
through  which  the  universe  came  into  existence.  But  all 
accounts  that  can  be  given  of  processes  tell  only  of  organi¬ 
zation,  for  they  imply  existing  material  upon  which  the 
organizing  process  works.  Origination  they  do  not  touch. 
No  doctrine  of  creation  tells  anything  about  the  nature  of  the 
divine  creative  movement  itself,  and  no  doctrine  or  theory 
will  ever  describe  that  movement.  It  lies  beyond  us,  in  a 
region  of  which  we  can  never  have  clear  knowledge.  The 
recognition  of  this  indescribableness  in  the  creative  work  is 
indispensable  if  we  are  to  think  rightly  of  it.  Of  course  we 
can  obtain  much  knowledge  of  the  great  process  by  which 
the  existing  universe  came  to  be  such  a  universe  as  it  now  is, 
and  we  may  understand  more  of  God  by  learning  it.  Chris¬ 
tian  thought  may  accept  in  this  region  anything  that  may  be 
established  as  true;  but  the  heart  of  creative  action  is  un¬ 
searchable. 

As  the  Christian  doctrine  decides  nothing  as  to  the  manner 
of  creation,  so  it  is  indifferent  concerning  all  questions  of  date 
and  time.  It  will  never  again  be  held  that  the  date  of  creation 
can  be  ascertained  by  reckoning  up  the  generations  of  a  human 
genealogy,  or  that  man  and  the  universe  were  created  at  the 
same  time.  We  know  too  much  of  both  man  and  the  universe 
to  imagine  that.  The  real  question  is  larger  far :  it  is,  whether 
the  universe  was  brought  into  being  at  some  given  time,  after 
God  had  existed  alone  from  eternity,  or  whether  God  has 


286 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


always  been  accompanied  in  existence  by  a  universe  dependent 
upon  himself.  This  question  must  be  decided,  if  it'  can  be 
decided  at  all,  by  evidence  if  there  is  evidence  available,  and 
upon  grounds  of  rational  probability  if  there  is  not.  It  may 
never  be  really  decided.  But  the  Christian  doctrine  is  in  no 
way  affected,  either  by  the  question  or  by  the  decision.  That 
doctrine  affirms  only  that  the  universe  exists  because  God 
exists  and  will  have  it  so,  and  because  he  puts  forth  will, 
wisdom  and  power  to  make  it  exist.  It  goes  no  farther.  It 
is  no  part  of  Christian  doctrine  that  all  that  is  not  God  had  a 
day  of  absolute  beginning,  before  which  God  was  alone,  or 
on  the  contrary  that  the  existence  of  the  universe  is  eternal. 
Either  may  be  true. 

Nevertheless,  although  we  are  not  called  by  the  Christian 
doctrine  to  choose  between  these  two  conceptions,  we  are 
very  likely  to  find  ourselves  judging  and  choosing  between 
them,  each  in  his  own  way.  Different  minds  judge  differently. 
Doubtless  the  growing  idea  at  present  is  that  of  an  eternal 
universe,  or  one  to  which  neither  beginning  nor  end  can  be 
assigned.  The  growth  of  this  view  is  not  to  be  wondered  at. 
The  idea  of  an  absolute  beginning,  before  which  there  was 
nothing  but  God,  is  very  easily  put  into  words,  but  not  so 
easily  grasped  in  thought.  The  mind  staggers  at  the  thought 
of  the  universe  as  we  know  it,  and  still  more  as  it  really  is,  as 
brought  into  being  after  nothing  had  been.  It  is  true  that 
the  staggering  of  the  mind  is  not  a  final  argument;  but  it  is 
well  to  remember  that  when  we  assert  an  absolute  beginning 
for  the  whole  we  are  uttering  clear  words  but  an  unclear 
thought,  and  not  to  think  that  we  understand  the  matter 
better  than  we  do.  Nor  is  it  easier  to  conceive  of  God  as 
existing  alone  until  a  certain  time  and  then  calling  a  universe 
into  existence.  Such  a  change  in  the  life  of  God  it  is  easy  to 
mention  in  words,  but  very  difficult  really  to  believe  in.  It 
seems  in  deeper  harmony  with  our  best  conception  of  the 
infinite  and  eternal  One  in  his  unchangeableness  and  efficiency 
to  think  that  God  is  eternally  a  creator,  or  an  original  from 
which  other  existence  ever  proceeds  in  accordance  with  his 


GOD  THE  SOURCE 


287 


will  and  wisdom,  and  that  thus  he  always  has  about  him  a 
universe,  or  a  sum  of  organized  being,  into  which  always 
flows  the  fulness  of  his  energy  and  love.  According  to  this, 
which  seems  the  nobler  and  worthier  view,  the  divine  will  is 
eternally  productive,  and  God  has  never  been  without  a  crea¬ 
tion,  and  will  never  be  alone.  This  appears  to  be  the  view 
that  has  best  promise  of  the  future. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  is  no  doctrine  of  the  eternity 
of  matter,  as  if  the  universe  were  something  that  God  found 
existing  together  with  himself,  and  had  to  deal  with  as  an 
independent  entity.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  God  has  no 
place  for  such  a  doctrine  as  that.  God  alone  is  independently 
eternal,  and  if  there  is  eternally  a  universe  it  is  because  God 
eternally  wills  it  and  makes  it  to  exist.  As  a  whole  and  in  all 
its  parts  it  depends  upon  him  and  without  him  would  have 
no  being;  but  his  creative  volition  never  fails,  and  the  uni¬ 
verse  responds  to  his  will  by  existing.  Neither  is  this  a  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  indispensableness  of  the  universe  to  God,  as  if 
he  could  not  be  God  without  it.  In  the  Christian  view  of 
the  matter  God  is  the  master,  and  it  is  by  his  will  that  the 
universe  stands  forth  in  being.  Not  because  he  must  have 
a  universe  to  be  God,  but  because  being  God  he  will  have 
a  universe,  he  brings  it  into  existence.  In  this  there  is  no 
constraint  and  no  dependence.  God  is  supreme,  and  all 
else  comes  at  the  call  of  his  will  and  character. 

Can  we  identify  the  motive  of  God  in  creation  ?  If  the 
prevailing  conception  is  that  of  a  sudden  act  after  ages  of 
solitude,  the  question  is.  Why,  having  been  so  long  alone,  did 
God  exchange  his  solitary  life  for  one  in  which  there  was 
other  existence  ?  If  the  other  idea  be  adopted,  of  a  perpetual 
producing  and  sustaining  of  existence  that  is  not  himself,  the 
question  is.  Why  does  God  always  desire  that  there  may  be 
existence  besides  his  own  ?  The  two  questions  do  not  rad¬ 
ically  differ,  but  the  latter  is  the  easier  in  the  answering. 
We  can  understand  a  perpetual  activity  better  than  one  long 
unexercised  and  then  ever  afterward  in  use.  If  we  venture 


288 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


to  speak  of  the  motive  that  leads  to  creation,  we  shall  find 
ourselves  remembering  the  impulse  to  self-expression  that  is 
characteristic  of  conscious  life.  It  is  impossible  to  think  of 
an  intelligent  and  worthy  Spirit  capable  of  creation  as  refrain¬ 
ing  from  the  act.  Such  powers  must  forth.  Utterance  is 
the  natural  law  of  life,  honoured  in  God  as  it  is  in  men,  and 
creation  is  utterance.  Creation  is  impartation  also;  and 
when  we  come  to  impartation  we  come  to  the  field  of  char¬ 
acter.  The  motive  to  creation,  we  may  be  sure,  is  not  to 
be  found  in  power,  or  in  inventiveness  and  constructiveness: 
it  lies  deeper,  in  the  moral  realm.  Self-utterance  is  self- 
impartation,  and  this  is  the  work  of  love,  and  God  is  love. 
God’s  desire  for  being  and  welfare,  for  worthy  existence  and 
lofty  use,  for  creatures  who  may  have  his  fellowship  and  for 
fellowship  with  them,  for  a  vast  sum  of  created  being  in 
which  his  worthy  character  may  have  its  way — this  is  the 
motive  for  creating  that  we  behold  in  God  when  we  view  him 
in  the  light  of  Jesus. 

To  beget  or  bear  a  child  is  to  accept  a  great  responsibility: 
how  much  more  to  call  a  universe  into  existence!  If  God 
were  not  all-good  and  all-great,  he  would  have  no  moral  right 
to  be  a  creator.  If  he  were  not  the  perfect  holiness  and  love 
and  wisdom,  he  could  not  take  due  care  of  that  which  he 
brings  forth,  and  would  wrong  it  in  creating  it.  But  the 
Christian  faith,  clear-eyed,  sees  a  God  worthy  to  be  Creator 
of  a  universe,  and  such  a  God  the  Christian  doctrine  proclaims. 
No  loftier  word  concerning  him  can  ever  be  spoken  than  this, 
that  he  is  worthy  to  be  the  source  of  boundless  and  endless 
being.  Nor  is  there  any  vaster  or  more  impressive  thought  of 
God  than  the  thought  of  the  creative  mind  and  heart,  the 
intelligence  of  the  universe,  the  productive  and  sustaining 
power,  acknowledging  that  which  he  has  created,  and  fulfilling 
in  its  destinies  the  purpose  of  a  faithful  Creator.  In  this 
relation  all  others  are  embraced — the  good  God  is  the  Source 
of  all  existence. 


THE  SELF-EXISTENT 


289 


5.  THE  SELF-EXISTENT 

The  child^s  question,  “Who  made  God?’’  is  a  perfectly 
natural  and  proper  question,  but  the  true  answer  is  not  such 
as  the  child  expects.  God  simply  is,  and  always  has  been, 
with  nothing  beyond  him  in  duration  or  in  causation.  He  is 
self-existent.  The  Christian  doctrine  affirms  that  God  is 
uncreated,  unoriginated,  having  no  beginning  and  owing  his 
existence  to  none.  He  is  the  great  Original,  with  existence 
all  his  own.  This  has  been  implied  in  the  doctrine  of  God 
as  the  Source  of  all.  Of  the  two  units  of  existence,  one 
originates  and  sustains  the  other,  but  the  One  is  itself  origi¬ 
nated  not  at  all.  All  that  exists  consists  of  Creator  and 
creation:  the  creation  is  from  the  Creator,  but  the  Creator 
simply  is. 

It  is  convenient  here  to  tell  in  two  parts  what  God’s  self¬ 
existence  means.  One  true  statement  is  that  the  perfect 
mind  is  self-existent,  underived,  independent.  The  Original 
of  all  being  is  the  perfect  mind  with  all  its  powers.  The 
first  existence,  all  uncaused,  is  One  who  knows,  wills,  acts, 
feels,  and  is  capable  of  standing  in  relation  with  other  being. 
Primal  being,  underived,  from  which  all  else  proceeds,  con¬ 
sists  in  voluntary  power  with  understanding.  It  is  thought- 
producing  mind,  with  operative  and  efficient  energy.  Another 
statement,  equally  true  with  this,  is  that  in  God  the  perfect 
character  is  self-existent.  Original  being  is  right,  good ,  perfect. 
That  which  is  unproduced  and  from  eternity  is  wisdom, 
holiness,  love:  it  is  the  character  that  deserves  approval, 
admiration,  worship,  confidence,  loyalty,  from  all  intelligent 
beings  that  may  ever  exist.  Primal  existence  has  moral  per¬ 
fection.  This  is  the  Christian  doctrine. 

When  these  two  thoughts  are  combined,  we  have  the  entire 
Christian  statement  as  to  that  which  stands  back  of  all 
besides,  as  the  uncaused  original.  It  is  not  enough  to  say 
that  qualities,  whether  intellectual  or  moral,  are  self-existent. 
It  is  not  that  wisdom,  love  or  power  is  original  and  self- 


290 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


existent :  this  is  true,  but  with  a  more  helpful  truth  underlying. 
Wisdom,  love  and  power  are  personal  qualities  or  endow¬ 
ments,  so  far  as  we  know  them  at  all,  and  personal  qualities 
and  powers  inhere  in  personality  and  in  nothing  else.  Thought 
belongs. to  mind,  and  character  to  person,  while  power  is  at 
least  in  the  habit  of  being  an  accompaniment  of  will.  It  is 
God  himself  that  is  self-existent,  not  merely  the  qualities  of 
God.  God  the  living  heart  and  will,  bearing  the  perfect 
character,  with  perfect  moral  quality,  intellectual  operation 
and  volitional  control,  is  the  One  underived  and  self-existent. 

Self-existence  is  often  said  to  be  inconceivable,  involving 
contradictory  elements  of  thought.  Our  impulse  to  assign 
to  everything  its  cause,  or  causes,  is  so  strong  and  so  necessary 
to  our  ordinary  thinking  that  it  is  accounted  impossible  for 
our  minds  to  hold  the  idea  of  independent  and  uncaused 
existence.  But  here  is  a  paradox.  Whether  the  idea  of  self¬ 
existence  is  impossible  or  not,  experience  shows  it  to  be  an 
unavoidable  conception.  Practically  all  minds  entertain 
it,  or  at  any  rate  assume  it  in  their  thinking.  If  we  do  not 
hold  it  concerning  God,  we  shall  find  ourselves  holding  it 
concerning  the  universe.  A  self-existent  universe,  indeed, 
has  the  first  opportunity  to  be  believed  in,  and  a  very  clear 
opportunity  it  is.  God  we  do  not  see,  but  we  do  see  the  world 
around  us,  and  then,  with  larger  scope,  the  universe.  The 
universe  was  there  before  we  came,  or  any  of  our  kind,  and 
although  we  know  that  it  is  ever  changing,  still  we  know  it 
as  an  ever-changing  sum  of  existence,  which  as  a  total  seems 
stable  and  everlasting.  No  sign  of  its  origin  is  apparent  as 
we  look,  and  the  more  we  know  of  it,  although  we  may  trace 
present  forms  to  their  beginning,  the  less  does  a  date  of 
absolute  origination  appear.  We  may  refer  its  existence 
back  to  God,  and  say  that  it  owes  itself  to  a  power  and  will 
that  lie  back  of  it,  and  then  we  may  say  that  this  God  is  self- 
existent.  If  we  do  not  do  this  in  some  form,  we  shall  inevit¬ 
ably  attribute  self-existence  to  the  universe  itself.  We  may 
profess  agnosticism  on  the  subject,  and  declare  that  we  do 


THE  SELF-EXISTENT 


291 


not  know  whence  the  universe  is;  but  this  is  only  another 
way  of  saying  that  so  far  as  we  can  see  the  universe  exists 
independently  of  any  known  causation,  which  is  practically 
to  call  it  self-existent.  We  shall  believe  either  in  a  self- 
existing  God  adequate  to  the  causing  of  the  universe,  or  in  a 
universe  apparently  existing  of  itself.  Certainly  it  is  a  strange 
kind  of  inconceivableness,  that  belongs  to  an  idea  that  all 
minds  are  sure  to  hold,  and  to  apply  to  the  greatest  object 
that  is  known  to  them.  Self-existence  is  not  picturable,  or 
accountable  in  clearly-defined  theory,  and  the  exposition  of 
it  may  involve  contradictory  statements,  but  it  is  very  far 
,  from  inconceivable.  It  is  nearer  the  truth  to  call  it  an  idea 
that  we  cannot  escape. 

It  is  fair  to  ask  which  is  the  more  reasonable  to  believe  in, 
the  universe  existing  of  itself,  or  God  existing  of  himself  and 
adequate  to  giving  existence  to  the  universe  ?  In  some  aspects 
the  universe  may  seem  sufficient  to  itself;  and  yet  it  is  a 
striking  fact  that  the  human  mind  has  steadily  entertained 
the  opposite  belief.  In  the  agelong  common  understanding, 
some  adequate  mind  and  power  has  been  posited  to  account 
for  that  which  exists.  The  description  of  this  adequate 
mind  and  power  has  often  been  childish,  and  therefore  we 
may  proceed  to  call  the  entire  idea  of  such  a  power  childish, 
and  declare  that  we  know  better  now;  and  yet  the  question  of 
comparative  reasonableness  remains  to  be  judged.  The 
truth  will  be  found  to  be  that  the  only  self-existence  in  which 
we  can  rest  is  the  self-existence  of  a  sufficient  God. 

The  present  form  and  state  of  the  universe  is  a  result  of 
processes:  this  is  the  great  inference  from  modern  observa¬ 
tion.  By  processes  things  have  come  to  be  as  they  are.  The 
processes  are  intellectual  in  their  nature,  in  the  sense  that  they 
work  out  intelligible  results,  and  are  directed  meanwhile  by 
intelligible  principles.  They  are  long  and  steady  processes, 
and  the  existing  results  have  been  brought  about  only  through 
long  and  steady  operation.  The  whole  sum  of  processes  and 
results  constitutes  what  we  may  fairly  call  a  system.  The 
entire  system  is  not  visible  to  us,  and  can  never  become  so. 


292 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  yet  we  are  in  a  position  to  be  sure  that  there  is  indeed 
a  system  comprehending  all.  A  system  is  of  course  an  in¬ 
tellectual  fact,  not  a  physical.  It  is  a  deep  misconception  to 
think  of  what  we  call  the  material  universe  as  mainly  material 
in  its  essential  nature.  Apart  from  all  questions  as  to  the 
nature  of  matter  and  spirit,  and  from  the  present  recognition 
of  psychical  quality  where  only  matter  was  but  lately  supposed 
to  be,  the  universe  as  we  observe  it  is  one  vast  working-out 
of  ideas  in  material  forms  of  expression.  The  extent  of  this 
fact  already  known  is  far  too  vast  to  be  conceived  by  human 
thought,  and  the  one  thing  certain  about  future  knowledge 
is  that  this  extent  will  still  be  indefinitely  enlarged.  All 
science  takes  for  granted  the  universal  scope  and  sway  of 
ideas,  and  is  never  disappointed  in  so  doing.  Rational 
quality  pervades  the  universe,  and  more  and  more  it  is  des¬ 
tined  to  be  known  as  a  universe  of  ideas  in  action. 

Then  the  question  is,  which  is  more  reasonably  regarded 
as  self-existent,  an  infinitely  vast  body  of  ideas  in  operation 
without  a  mind  to  originate  and  operate  them,  or  a  mind 
originating  the  ideas  and  holding  them  in  operation?  We 
may  ask  ourselves  whether  we  are  capable  of  judging  upon 
such  a  question,  because  our  range  is  so  limited  and  there  is 
so  much  that  we  cannot  know.  But  we  must  judge  by  such 
light  as  we  have,  and  such  light  as  we  have  gives  us  all  our 
science;  and  in  such  light  as  we  have  it  is  impossible  to  judge 
otherwise  than  that  a  mind  is  farther  back  than  an  idea,  and 
more  original.  We  know  nothing  of  an  idea  except  as  the 
act  and  product  of  a  mind.  To  affirm  that  a  mass  of  ideas 
in  effective  operation,  constituting  a  universal  system,  exists 
of  itself  is  far  less  reasonable  than  to  say  that  there  exists  of 
itself  a  mind,  to  which  the  ideas  owe  their  existence  and 
operative  power.  The  self-existence  of  God  is  the  doctrine 
that  was  first  suggested,  and  the  doctrine  that  will  stand. 

The  Christian  doctrine  offers  no  apology  to  science  for 
affirming  the  self-existence  of  God.  The  conviction  was 
reached,  it  is  true,  not  so  much  through  speculative  thought 
as  through  religion;  for  religion,  which  is  an  experience, 


THE  SELF-EXISTENT 


293 


is  a  confidence  in  One  who  alone  is  God,  and  rests  in  the 
absolute  independence  of  his  being.  Its  God  simply  is. 
This  conviction  Christian  faith  is  well  entitled  to  hold,  with¬ 
out  objection  from  the  scientific  point  of  view.  Modern 
science  has  been  observing  facts,  and  has  naturally  been 
agnostic,  for  the  time,  as  to  origins,  with  the  result  that  the 
universe  was  easily  thought  to  be  sufficient  to  itself,  and  science 
came  to  be  counted  as  a  witness  to  its  independence.  But 
the  agnostic  conclusion  is  only  negative,  and  only  tentative, 
and  is  by  no  means  sure  to  be  final  on  the  part  of  science; 
and  science  with  its  method  is  by  no  means  the  only  authorized 
explorer  in  the  wide  realm  of  being.  *  In  its  own  field  religion 
may  discover  sound  reason  for  believing  in  a  God  who  can 
be  no  other  than  the  source  of  all,  existent  by  his  own  nature. 
If  such  discovery  is  made,  it  is  quite  legitimate  for  the  report 
of  it  to  be  welcomed  by  all  who  are  seeking  to  know  whence 
all  things  come,  and  adopted  as  the  truth  that  best  gives 
rational  unity  to  the  whole. 

The  self-existence  of  the  God  of  perfect  character  is  even 
more  profoundly  significant  than  the  self-existence  of  the 
God  of  mind  and  power.  Practical  inferences  from  it  are 
drawn  in  the  same  manner,  but  they  come  home  to  us  more 
closely.  Since  the  God  of  power  is  self-existent  and  the  source 
of  all,  we  know  that  all  manifestations  of  power  that  we 
observe  are  secondary  and  contingent,  and  all  power  in  finite 
beings  is  derived;  and  the  all-comprehensive  and  unbor¬ 
rowed  power  stands  back  of  all.  Again,  since  the  God  of 
mind  is  self-existent,  all  human  intellect  and  mental  work  is 
derived  and  secondary,  while  back  of  all  is  the  uncreated 
mind,  source  and  type  of  all  intelligence,  upon  which  the 
created  mind  may  rest  for  confidence  in  its  own  trustworthi¬ 
ness.  Now  in  the  same  strain  we  add,  that  since  the  God 
of  perfect  character  is  self-existent,  all  human  morality  is 
secondary  and  derived,  the  entire  conception  and  sphere  of 
morals  in  this  world  is  embraced  in  something  infinitely 
greater  than  itself,  and  underneath  the  whole  lies  a  primary, 
independent  and  original  foundation  for  ethical  life  and 


294 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


meaning.  And  further,  since  the  eternal  goodness  is  self- 
existent,  religion  has  immovable  ground  for  existence, 
throughout  the  universe  and  forever  the  reasons  for  it  are  the 
same,  and  the  highest  reach  of  purity  in  religion  comes  nearest 
to  the  truth.  This  is  what  God’s  self-existence  means  to  us. 

Perhaps  we  cannot  prove  that  there  can  be  only  one  self- 
existent — unless  by  some  technical  arguing  that  is  too  small 
for  the  subject.  But  the  probability  to  that  effect  is  equal  to 
certainty.  The  Christian  doctrine  assigns  to  God  a  sole  self¬ 
existence  when  it  says  that  of  the  two  units  one  is  the  source 
of  the  other,  for  it  accounts  for  everything  else  by  referring  it 
to  him,  and  sets  all  in  the  rank  of  the  dependent;  and  this 
is  a  reasonable  position.  Certainly  there  is  one  self-existent, 
and  only  one.  We  may  well  be  thankful  that  concerning 
the  cause  of  self-existence,  or  the  method  of  it,  there  can  be 
no  argument.  That  lies  beyond  all  arguing  and  explaining. 
But  there  can  be  no  more  joyful  and  reassuring  word  than 
this,  that  the  Being  whom  we  know  in  our  best  religion  is 
the  underived  and  self-existent  God,  believing  in  whom  we 
build  our  faith  and  our  doctrine  upon  ultimate  foundations. 

6.  THE  ETERNAL. 

The  Christian  doctrine  always  proclaims  an  eternal  God. 
“Now  unto  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the  only 
God,  be  honour  and  glory  for  ever  and  ever”  (1  Tim.  i.  17), 
is  the  song  that  it  sings.  By  the  eternal  God  is  meant  in  com¬ 
mon  speech  the  God  whose  existence  has  neither  beginning 
nor  end :  the  God  who  by  his  nature  has  ever  been  and  must 
forever  be.  Such  a  God  the  Christian  doctrine  affirms. 

In  this  sense,  to  be  self-existent  is  to  be  eternal.  To  be 
self-existent  is  to  be  without  beginning,  and  by  natural 
implication  it  is  to  be  without  end.  Self-existence  is  simply 
existence  wholly  independent.  As  nothing  initiated  it,  so 
nothing  can  terminate  it.  It  is  essentially  eternal,  without 
limits  upon  its  duration.  As  perhaps  we  cannot  prove  that 
there  can  be  only  one  self-existent,  so  perhaps  we  cannot  prove 


THE  ETERNAL 


295 


that  there  can  exist  only  one  Being  whose  nature  it  is  to  be 
eternal;  but  here  again  the  probability  is  overwhelming,  and 
may  be  taken  as  equal  to  certainty.  When  Christianity 
speaks  of  the  eternal  God,  it  means  that  the  one  Spirit,  who 
alone  is  God,  is  alone  possessed  of  independent  being  that 
never  began  and  can  never  end.  The  Christian  doctrine 
proclaims  a  theism,  and  a  monotheism,  for  eternity  past  and 
eternity  to  come.  The  intelligence,  power  and  perfect  good¬ 
ness  that  belong  to  the  only  God  are  from  everlasting  to  ever¬ 
lasting — or  to  speak  more  correctly,  that  eternal  God  in  whom 
these  qualities  inhere  is  without  beginning  and  without  end  of 
life.  Whatever  may  change,  he  exists  forever. 

Here  again  we  affirm  what  we  cannot  portray,  but  that  is 
no  reason  against  our  affirming  it.  Existence  without  begin¬ 
ning  or  end  is  beyond  our  power  to  comprehend,  but  notwith¬ 
standing  this  it  stands  as  a  necessary  element  in  our  thought. 
It  is  no  more  unthinkable  than  its  opposite.  If  we  try  to  con¬ 
ceive  of  all  existence  as  confined  within  certain  limits  of 
duration,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  abandon  the  endeavour 
because  of  its  sheer  absurdity;  while  the  effort  to  grasp  eternal 
being  conquers  us  only  by  its  greatness.  Eternity  of  being 
is  beyond  our  range  of  thought,  but  contains  no  element  of 
absurdity.  It  is  rational  to  believe  in  the  eternal  God. 

The  word  eternal,  however,  conveys  another  idea  besides 
that  of  duration  without  beginning  or  end.  It  is  a  secondary 
meaning,  into  which  the  first  is  naturally  developed.  If  we 
try  to  think  of  existence  whose  duration  is  unlimited,  and  to 
conceive  in  any  measure  what  it  must  be,  we  shall  find  our¬ 
selves  thinking  of  an  existence  superior  to  all  temporal  condi¬ 
tions,  and  unaffected  by  them.  It  is  a  mistake  to  think  of 
existence  that  we  call  eternal  as  exempt  from  the  influence 
of  duration  merely  with  reference  to  beginning  and  ending. 
Such  existence  is  exempt  from  the  control  of  duration  through¬ 
out  its  boundless  extent.  The  word  does  more  than  deny 
termini  for  existence:  it  affirms  or  implies  an  abiding  quality 
in  the  existence  which  it  thus  represents  as  limitless.  The 


296 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


absence  of  limits  of  time  opens  the  way  for  a  quality  that  can 
have  no  place  in  our  time-measured  life,  save  as  it  enters 
through  fellowship  with  the  Eternal.  That  quality  is  supe¬ 
riority  to  time,  freedom  from  the  effects  of  the  method  of  suc¬ 
cession.  It  is  a  quality  that  we  are  compelled  to  set  forth  in 
negative  form,  because  the  positive  nature  of  it  lies  beyond 
our  experience.  We  may  wish  for  a  better  word,  but  we 
cannot  go  farther  than  to  describe  the  eternal  life  of  God  as 
a  timeless  life.  Eternity  differs  from  time  not  merely  in 
length,  but  in  freedom  from  the  limitations  that  time  imposes 
upon  intelligent  existence. 

Various  illustrations  of  this  idea  will  meet  us  as  we  go  on 
through  the  doctrine  of  God:  at  present  we  must  only  en¬ 
deavour  to  see  in  general  what  it  means.  Our  minds  are 
controlled  and  limited  by  succession.  Duration  takes  this 
form  in  its  influence  upon  us — it  sets  one  thing  before  and 
another  after,  and  prevents  us  from  experiencing  them  except 
in  their  order.  To  us  yesterday  is  yesterday,  not  to-day,  and 
to-morrow  is  to-morrow.  We  live  exclusively  in  an  ever- 
moving  moment,  with  the  past  behind  it  and  the  future 
before  it  Nothing  could  be  briefer  than  the  fragment  of 
time  that  is  actually  present.  We  have  indeed  a  personal 
continuity,  which  is  one  of  the  most  mysterious  things  about 
our  life;  but  this  does  not  make  it  the  less  true  that  yesterday 
is  ours  only  in  its  results,  and  to-morrow  only  in  expectation. 
This  is  so  thoroughly  a  part  of  our  natural  mode  of  living  as 
often  to  be  taken  for  a  necessary  mode  of  rational  existence; 
and  under  this  impression  eternity  is  taken  to  be  merely  a 
prolongation  of  time,  with  the  element  of  temporal  succession 
forever  unmodified.  But  this  subjection  to  succession  is  no 
necessary  part  of  rational  life.  Our  bondage  to  succession 
is  one  of  our  limitations.  Even  now  we  should  often  be 
glad  if  we  could  transcend  it  and  live  on  a  larger  scale. 
Broader  mental  operations  are  perfectly  conceivable  to  us, 
and  we  know  that  they  would  not  be  abnormal  in  rational 
existence,  but  would  bring  a  noble  and  worthy  enlargement. 
If  there  exists  a  perfect  mind,  we  are  sure  that  it  must  be 


THE  ETERNAL 


297 


free  from  this  limitation ;  for  our  dependence  upon  succession, 
with  its  consequences,  though  it  be  a  part  of  ourselves,  is  an 
imperfection  in  rational  life.  If  God  is  the  perfect  mind,  he 
is  superior  to  time:  he  lives  a  timeless  life,  governed  by  no 
limitations  from  duration  with  its  series  of  successions.  His 
life  is  eternal :  it  is  not  merely  of  boundless  length,  but  is  full 
of  that  infinite  largeness  and  richness  which  must  accompany 
superiority  to  time  and  all  its  influences. 

Of  this  life  above  time  we  can  at  least  see  that  it  must  be  a 
life  all-comprehensive.  To  the  perfect  mind  thus  living,  the 
whole  range  and  sum  of  existence,  whether  his  own  or  that 
of  other  being,  must  be  perpetually  present.  Of  course  he 
must  be  aware  of  succession,  or  he  would  not  know  things 
as  they  are,  but  it  is  also  true  that  he  knows  all  from  above 
succession,  and  independently  of  it.  He  does  not  learn  by 
experience,  or  obtain  his  knowledge  of  things  by  seeing 
them  come  and  pass,  as  we  do.  To  him  all  is  present,  and 
all  enters  always  into  his  life.  And  so  his  life  does  not  depend 
for  its  worth  and  interest  upon  the  changes,  the  surprises, 
the  quick  developments,  upon  which  we  count  so  much,  and 
which  constitute  so  large  a  part  of  the  charm  of  our  limited 
existence.  We  are  dependent  upon  “the  chances  and 
changes  of  this  mortal  life”  for  much  of  the  interest  and 
value  of  our  experience;  but  all  this  has  no  place  with  God. 
He  is  superior  to  all  such  dependence,  and  lives  forever  a  life 
whose  glory  is  in  itself.  From  everlasting  to  everlasting  he 
is  God.  As  the  perfect  Being  he  has  the  entire  fulness  of  his 
own  unmeasured  life  always  in  mind  and  heart,  and  has  no 
need  of  those  uncertainties  and  surprises,  bound  in  with  our 
kind  of  life,  with  which  time  diversifies  and  renders  piquant 
our  experience.  The  divine  perfection,  purpose  and  work 
are  always  with  him  in  their  completeness,  and  all  the  work¬ 
ings  of  his  goodness  are  always  with  him  in  their  preciousness. 
The  life  of  God  that  is  eternal  contains  the  secret  of  perpetual 
satisfaction,  for  the  divine  fulness  is  in  it,  and  it  is  worth  liv¬ 
ing  not  merely  for  what  will  come  of  it,  but  for  its  own  sake. 

Along  with  this  superiority  to  control  from  time,  denoted 


298 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


by  the  word  eternal,  there  must  go  a  like  superiority  to 
control  from  the  limitations  of  space.  This  idea  belongs  in 
company  with  the  other,  though  strictly  it  is  not  indicated  by 
the  word  eternal.  We  are  even  more  closely  limited  in  space 
than  we  are  in  time,  for  we  have  no  spatial  faculty  that  corre¬ 
sponds  to  memory,  or  to  imagination.  But  through  all 
places  as  well  as  through  all  times  the  life  of  the  eternal  Spirit 
ranges  free,  and  all  parts  of  the  universe  as  well  as  all  moments 
of  duration  are  present  to  him.  Thus  the  life  of  God  as 
eternal  is  the  largest  life,  and  the  fullest,  that  can  possibly 
exist.  To  call  it  the  largest  and  fullest  that  can  be  conceived 
is  to  fall  far  below  the  reality. 

This  qualitative  meaning  in  the  word  eternal  is  quite  as 
important  to  sound  Christian  thought  concerning  God  as 
the  meaning  that  relates  to  duration.  But  it  has  been  much 
less  considered,  and  there  is  great  need  that  it  be  taken 
up  with  fresh  interest  and  appreciation.  By  most  Christians 
it  would  not  be  mentioned  at  all  in  a  definition  of  the  term: 
they  would  define  eternity  simply  as  a  word  of  duration. 
Doubtless  the  idea  of  infinite  length  of  duration  is  impressive, 
but  in  itself  it  has  no  spiritual  quality  whatever:  that  must 
be  imparted  to  it  by  the  connection  in  which  it  is  used.  And 
yet  when  once  it  is  seriously  considered  the  temporal  or  dura¬ 
tional  sense  does  imply  a  superiority  to  time-conditions  that 
must  impart  to  existence  a  quality  and  character  of  its  own; 
and  this  fact,  though  scarcely  recognized,  has  certainly 
influenced  the  popular  conception  of  the  eternity  of  God. 
The  popular  conception  is  certainly  richer  than  the  durational 
definition  commonly  accepted  could  ever  make  it.  Probably 
at  present  more  of  helpful  spiritual  truth  concerning  God  is 
to  be  learned  by  meditation  upon  this  rich  qualitative  sense 
of  his  eternity  than  can  be  drawn  from  thinking  of  it  as  infinite 
duration.  It  is  by  way  of  this  second  meaning  that  the  adjec¬ 
tive  eternal  passes  over  to  objects  other  than  God.  The 
eternal  life  that  is  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament  is  not 
merely  life  that  has  no  end,  any  more  than  it  is  life  that  has 


THE  INFINITE 


299 


no  beginning.  The  durational  sense  of  the  word  cannot 
apply  in  its  fulness  to  anything  human  or  finite:  strictly, 
there  is  only  one  Eternal.  Moreover,  mere  existence  without 
end  cannot  be  offered  as  a  boon,  for  the  value  of  such  a  gift 
must  be  determined  by  its  quality.  The  ‘‘eternal  life'’  of 
the  gospel  is  an  unending  life  that  partakes  in  the  eternity  of 
God:  life  of  God's  own  children,  above  time  and  its  changes: 
life  worth  living  in  itself  and  for  its  own  sake:  life  whose 
everlastingness  is  precious  by  reason  of  its  worth  in  fellowship 
with  him  who  is  eternal.  The  obscuring  of  this  element  in 
our  conception  of  the  eternal  must  mean  impoverishment  to 
all  our  Christian  thought,  and  ultimately  to  our  Christian  life, 
while  by  means  of  it  we  may  rise  to  the  highest  conceptions  both 
of  God  and  of  human  destiny  of  which  our  minds  are  capable. 

Under  the  conception  of  his  eternity,  then,  the  Christian 
doctrine  affirms  that  God  has  always  existed  and  will  always 
exist,  possessed  of  all  the  qualities  that  make  up  his  being  and 
character;  that  through  eternal  duration  he  always  lives  a 
life  of  eternal  quality  ^and  fulness,  superior  to  time  and  inde¬ 
pendent  of  succession,  into  which  all  its  elements  always 
enter  at  once  and  abide  together;  and  that  this  eternal  life 
of  God  is  a  life  in  which  existence  for  its  own  sake  is  perfectly 
worthy  of  the  perfect  Being. 

7.  THE  INFINITE 

The  word  infinite  has  long  been  a  familiar  and  favourite 
word  in  statements  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God.  The 
word  itself,  meaning  simply  without  bounds,  or  unlimited, 
is  perfectly  colourless  and  unsuggestive,  entirely  devoid  of 
spiritual  quality;  and  yet  in  Christian  thought  and  devotion 
it  has  proved  to  be  a  word  of  vast  suggestiveness  and  power, 
expansive  for  the  mind  and  uplifting  for  the  heart.  Doubtless 
the  thought  of  God  has  done  far  more  to  enrich  the  word  than 
the  word  has  done  to  define  or  clarify  the  thought  of  God. 
But  the  Christian  doctrine  needs  the  word,  and  insists  upon 
the  thought  which  it  expresses. 


300 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


The  idea  of  infinity,  strictly  speaking,  is  an  abstract  idea 
that  belongs  rather  to  philosophy  than  to  religion.  Yet  it  is 
in  the  field  of  religion  that  the  idea  first  became  impressive, 
and  it  is  thence  that  it  passed  as  an  influential  idea  into 
philosophy.  Religion  does  not  concern  itself  with  the 
distinction  between  the  infinite  and  the  finite,  but  it  does 
impel  the  soul  to  stand  in  awe  before  a  Being  who  impresses 
it  as  infinite.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  living  soul, 
infinity  is  not  a  quality  defined,  nor  is  the  mention  of  it  the 
affirming  of  a  comparison  between  it  and  the  finite:  it  is 
simply  an  unmeasured  and  immeasurable  greatness.  In 
religion,  infinity  is  not  reasoned  out,  it  is  felt.  Man  stands 
before  it,  feels  himself  surrounded  by  it,  and  responds  to  it 
with  reverence  and  humility.  It  wins  upon  him,  impresses 
him,  makes  him  a  worshipper,  long  before  he  has  grasped 
it  as  a  metaphysical  conception,  or  thought  of  defining  it. 
It  is  by  standing  awed  before  an  indefinite  divine  greatness 
that  man  has  come  to  think  of  what  he  afterward  names  the 
infinite. 

In  this  practical  light,  which  is  the  historical,  infinity  is 
of  course  a  relative  conception,  variable  in  the  extent  of  its 
meaning.  Long  before  worshipping  man  is  capable  of 
thinking  what  vastness  such  a  word  would  cover,  he  may  be 
impressed  by  the  sense  of  infinity  in  the  object  of  his  worship, 
and  may  begin  to  use  the  word,  with  but  a  narrow  significance. 
The  infinite  is  the  Being  who  seems  great  beyond  all  concep¬ 
tion,  to  whose  greatness  no  limits  can  be  imagined.  The 
essential  sense  of  the  infinite  may  be  present  while  the  range 
of  recognized  greatness  is  but  small,  since  infinity  is  not  at 
first  a  matter  of  measurements  but  of  sensations.  As  the 
human  powers  grow  and  the  spiritual  susceptibilities  are 
deepened,  the  meaning  is  enlarged.  By  and  by  philosophical 
reflection  enters,  and  analysis  of  working  ideas  begins,  and 
then  man  inquires  what  he  understands  by  the  infinite.  He 
has  long  been  setting  it  over  against  his  own  littleness,  but 
now  he  begins  to  distinguish  in  thought  between  infinite  and 
finite.  He  comes  to  have  a  doctrine.  But  very  likely  he 


THE  INFINITE 


301 


has  no  more  sense  of  the  infinite  than  he  had  before.  He 
may  have  less.  The  religious  content  and  effect  of  the 
infinite  for  the  soul  is  independent  of  the  clearness  with  which 
the  intellectual  conception  is  apprehended.  The  infinite  is 
too  great  for  man;  but  that  may  mean  perplexity  for  the 
intellect,  while  it  means  rapture  for  the  heart.  A  man  may 
think  upon  the  infinite,  unmoved;  but  he  may  be  deeply 
moved  by  an  infinite  of  which  he  knows  not  how  to  think. 
The  utmost  that  a  man  can  hope  is  that  he  may  possess  a 
worthy  and  ever-growing  sense  of  the  inconceivable  greatness 
of  God,  and  think  with  some  justice  of  its  meaning. 

Very  naturally,  it  is  the  religious  and  practical  meaning  of 
the  infinity  of  God  that  has  place  in  the  Christian  doctrine. 
Yet  there  is  good  reason  why  the  idea  of  infinity  as  applied 
to  him  should  be  made  as  clear  as  possible. 

Ourselves  we  call  finite,  by  which  we  mean  that  on  every 
side  our  powers  and  our  relations  reach  their  limit.  We  are 
not  universal  in  our  range,  and  we  are  not  adequate  to  all 
the  possibilities  that  lie  within  the  range  that  is  actually  ours. 
We  are  limited  by  relations  of  time  and  space.  We  can  act 
only  now  and  here.  Such  limits  of  relation  are  enough  to 
constitute  close  restriction  upon  our  possibilities.  As  for 
our  actual  powers,  we  have  never  seen  them  by  themselves, 
and  they  have  never  been  tested  to  the  full  extent,  so  that 
we  do  not  precisely  know  how  much  they  are  capable  of;  but 
we  know  beyond  a  doubt  that  limitation  is  an  unremovable 
part  of  our  being.  The  limitation  is  not  merely  in  our 
relations,  but  also  in  ourselves.  A  being  that  can  act  only 
here  and  now  can  never  become  able  to  do  all  that  corresponds 
to  the  nature  of  spiritual  powers;  and  we  can  act  only  here 
and  now — or  if  there  be  any  modification  to  be  made  to  this 
statement  it  is  too  slight  to  discredit  it.  We  are  thus  limited 
not  by  circumstances  merely,  but  by  our  nature — we  were 
made  so.  By  our  very  nature  some  possibilities  of  spiritual 
activity  are  shut  out  from  us.  Some  things  we  can  do,  and 
some  we  cannot,  and  from  this  condition  we  shall  never 


302 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


escape.  Our  powers  will  grow,  but  our  essential  rank  and 
description  as  limited  beings  will  never  be  altered.  This  is 
what  it  is  to  be  finite. 

When  we  say  that  God  is  infinite,  we  reverse  the  afiSrmations 
and  denials  that  we  have  made  concerning  ourselves.  We  say 
that  his  powers  are  such  as  never  to  reach  the  limit  of  their 
possibilities,  and  that  he  is  in  universal  and  perfect  relation 
with  all  other  existence.  He  is  infinite  or  unbounded  in  him¬ 
self,  and  infinite  or  unrestrained  in  the  freedom  and  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  action  that  his  perfect  relation  to  other  existence 
opens  to  him.  If  we  think  of  him  by  himself,  then  in  himself 
all  powers  are  of  unlimited  greatness  and  sufficiency.  If  we 
think  of  him  in  connection  with  other  being,  then  those  powers 
are  in  perfect  relation  to  it  all,  so  that  to  him  all  normal 
action  is  freely  possible.  This  is  what  it  is  to  be  infinite. 

In  trying  to  think  somewhat  definitely  of  the  infinity 
of  God,  we  often  assert  the  infinity  of  his  separate  powers. 
^'Infinite  in  all  his  attributes”  is  a  common  form  of  speech. 
His  power  is  infinite:  upon  his  ability  to  act,  and  to  do  what¬ 
ever  is  normal  to  him,  there  are  no  limits,  either  in  his  own 
nature  or  in  his  relations  to  other  existence.  In  a  like  sense 
his  knowledge  is  infinite,  or  unbounded  and  complete.  His 
presence  is  infinite:  from  no  place  is  he  excluded,  but  in  all 
space,  as  in  all  duration,  he  exists  in  the  fulness  of  his  being. 
These  may  be  taken  as  true  descriptions  of  the  infinity  of  God 
in  certain  aspects  or  operations  of  his  nature.  We  often 
speak  also  of  infinity  in  his  moral  attributes,  and  tell  of  his 
infinite  holiness  and  infinite  love.  Here  the  language  is  often 
used  loosely  and  popularly,  and  perhaps  the  grouping  of 
infinity  with  a  moral  trait  does  not  yield  itself  to  precise 
expression.  But  the  names  serve  a  useful  purpose.  Infinite 
holiness  and  love  are  the  moral  characteristics  of  the  Being 
in  whom  all  powers  are  perfect,  unlimited,  adequate:  they 
are  holiness  and  love  perfect  in  quality,  boundless  in  range, 
sovereign  in  action.  So  if  we  subdivide,  and  speak  of  infinite 
righteousness  or  infinite  mercy,  the  adjective  will  denote  the 
immeasurable  greatness,  fulness,  efficiency,  of  the  quality 


THE  INFINITE 


303 


that  it  describes.  It  is  right  thus  to  represent  the  moral 
qualities  as  infinite,  if  we  remember  that  we  are  speaking  in 
the  religious  sphere,  rather  than  in  the  philosophical. 

Yet  the  full  wealth  of  the  word  infinite  is  not  opened 
when  we  speak  of  infinite  power  and  knowledge,  or  even  of 
infinite  holiness  and  love.  That  these  are  infinite  is  not  the 
central  Christian  truth  concerning  infinity.  The  central 
truth  is  that  God  is  infinite — not  the  qualities  and  powers,  but 
the  Being  to  whom  they  belong.  We  ascribe  infinity  to 
God  himself,  possessed  of  will  and  mind  and  heart  and 
character  in  unlimited  perfection,  from  whom  every  work 
that  is  normal  to  such  a  Being  goes  forth  unrestrained. 
This  is  the  glorious  reality  which  the  Christian  doctrine  pro¬ 
claims.  No  wonder  that  in  Christian  use  the  word  infinite 
has  passed  over  from  negative  significance  to  positive,  and 
been  redeemed  from  colourlessness  to  spiritual  beauty. 

Christianity  always  speaks  of  God  as  a  spirit,  meaning  by  a 
spirit  a  personal  being,  and  at  the  same  time  it  speaks  of  him 
as  infinite.  It  thus  affirms  a  combination  that  knows  no 
parallel.  We  need  not  wonder  that  it  is  questioned.  Finite 
spirits  we  know,  and  our  conception  of  them  has  their  finitude 
for  a  constituent  element,  but  now  we  tell  of  a  spirit  beyond 
all  finitude,  an  infinite  spirit.  In  common  use  the  word  spirit 
is  a  more  variable  word  than  infinite,  and  in  this  combination 
the  more  flexible  noun  tends  to  yield  to  the  more  exacting 
adjective,  and  take  on  a  shadowy  meaning.  Its  connotation 
of  personal  quality  may  easily  fade  away,  and  the  phrase  infi¬ 
nite  spirit  may  turn  to  the  service  of  a  pantheistic  cast  of 
thought.  Many  think  it  must  do  so.  Personality  fades  out  in 
infinity,  and  it  sometimes  almost  seems  that  by  insisting  upon 
his  infinity  we  may  be  in  danger  of  losing  our  living  God. 

But  the  Christian  doctrine  does  not  yield  to  this  suggestion. 
It  does  not  shrink  from  the  great  paradox  that  appears  when 
God  is  presented  as  both  personal  and  infinite.  It  makes 
bold  to  affirm  the  infinite  Person.  For  this  it  is  charged  with 
folly,  since  infinity  and  personality  are  accounted  exclusive 


304 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


of  each  other.  Since  personality  is  limited  and  the  infinite 
is  unlimited,  the  two  are  incompatible:  the  personal  cannot 
be  infinite,  or  the  infinite  personal.  By  this  dilemma  the 
question  of  a  personal  God  is  often  thought  to  be  settled  once 
for  all  in  the  negative.  Nevertheless  Christianity  holds  fast 
that  the  infinite  Spirit  is  a  personal  Spirit,  and  that  in  this 
there  is  no  absurdity.  We  have  already  spoken  of  the  Per¬ 
sonality  of  God,  and  beginning  from  the  human  have  sought 
to  show  that  from  our  limited  personality  we  may  legitimately 
look  up  to  the  perfect  personality  in  God  alone.  At  present 
we  approach  the  question  from  the  other  side :  we  begin  from 
above,  and  endeavour  to  tell  what  we  mean  by  the  infinite 
personal  Spirit. 

When  God  is  called  the  infinite  Being,  it  is  meant  that 
upon  his  powers  and  qualities  there  are  no  limitations. 
Then  we  naturally  ask  what  are  the  powers  upon  which  we 
are  declaring  that  there  is  no  limitation.  We  turn  at  first 
to  the  quarter  where  signs  of  greatness  are  most  apparent 
and  familiar,  and  look  for  God  in  as  much  of  the  vast  and 
various  universe  as  we  can  behold.  If  there  is  any  power 
or  quality  that  is  manifest  everywhere,  it  is  intelligence; 
equally  clear  is  activity  directed  by  intelligence;  while  implied 
in  both  is  relatedness  of  the  efficient  intelligence  to  other 
being.  If  any  Being  whatever  is  expressed  in  the  universe 
that  we  behold,  these  are  his  qualities.  The  universal  frame 
is  one  vast  expression  of  intelligence  and  activity,  standing  in 
relation  with  that  upon  which  they  work.  But  these,  we  have 
only  to  repeat,  are  the  constituent  elements  of  personality. 
What  makes  us  persons  is  self-consciousness,  or  intelligence, 
and  self-determination,  or  intelligent  activity,  and  relatedness 
to  other  beings.  We  do  not  behold  these  elements  gathered 
up  into  a  person  when  we  look  abroad  upon  the  world,  but 
neither  do  we  behold  that  in  observing  men.  Everywhere 
we  learn  personality  from  its  expressions.  If  there  exists  an 
intelligence  adequate  to  those  vast  works  in  which  we  in  our 
measure  can  discern  it,  an  intelligence  so  great  that  we 
name  it  infinite,  surely  it  is  only  the  most  natural  of  observa- 


THE  INFINITE 


305 


tions  to  look  upon  that  intelligence  as  self-conscious.  Can 
we  think  it  knows  so  much  and  does  not  know  itself  ?  And  if 
there  is  so  great  activity  ordered  by  intelligence,  all  that 
we  know  of  intelligence  and  activity  tells  us  that  the  Actor 
must  be  self-directing  in  the  operation  that  so  intelligently 
controls  the  universe.  And  if  there  is  a  Being  who  thus  acts 
upon  the  universe,  there  belongs  to  him  that  relatedness 
which  we  account  a  mark  of  operative  personality.  Thus  the 
very  elements  that  make  up  personality  in  us  are  clearly 
traceable  in  him  whom  we  call  infinite,  and  they  seem  there 
to  be  sufficiently  at  home,  with  nothing  absurd  in  their 
association  with  the  greatness  of  God. 

As  soon  as  we  go  a  step  farther  and  recognize  in  the  infinite 
anything  of  character,  we  are  still  more  plainly  in  the  realm 
of  personality.  If  we  think  of  the  infinite  Being  as  holy,  or 
righteous,  or  gracious,  or  if  we  should  go  to  the  opposite 
extreme  and  look  upon  the  infinite  movement  as  the  work  of 
one  great  cruelty  and  wrong,  all  this  is  to  attribute  to  the  infi¬ 
nite  the  acts  of  personality.  It  is  only  by  personification  that 
a  storm  can  be  called  cruel  or  an  earthquake  unjust,  for  it  is 
only  to  a  real  person  that  we  can  properly  attribute  either 
cruelty  and  injustice  or  righteousness  and  love.  If  the  in¬ 
finite  Being  has  character,  the  infinite  Being  is  personal; 
and  if  we  have  anything  to  do  with  an  infinite  Being  at 
all,  we  have  to  do  with  a  Being  who  is  possessed  of  character. 
Whatever  our  speculative  difficulties  may  be,  we  are  practi¬ 
cally  compelled  to  attribute  infinity  and  personality  to  the 
same  Being.  The  difficulties  may  remain,  but  confidence  in 
the  Infinite  Person  will  remain  also. 

The  relation  between  the  infinite  and  the  finite  offers  a 
problem  that  has  often  proved  troublesome,  and  unfavourable 
to  religious  confidence.  The  finite,  it  is  said,  must  of  neces¬ 
sity  be  included  in  the  infinite;  for  if  it  is  not,  the  infinite 
belies  its  name,  and  is  only  another  finite,  since  it  is  not  all- 
comprehensive,  but  leaves  something  outside  of  itself.  But 
if  the  finite  is  included  in  the  infinite,  it  must  be  a  part  of  the 
infinite;  and  if  the  infinite  is  God,  man,  being  finite,  must  be 


306 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


a  part  of  God:  pantheism  is  the  outcome,  and  human  re¬ 
sponsibility  with  moral  significance  in  life  is  gone. 

Perhaps  the  whole  question  is  due  to  ambiguity  in  terms. 
Infinity  seems  here  to  be  thought  of  in  a  kind  of  numerical 
fashion,  and  an  infinite  as  the  sum-total  of  all  that  is  of  its 
kind.  If  this  were  right,  and  the  infinite  mind  were  the 
sum  of  all  mind,  so  that  there  would  be  room  for  nothing 
else  of  that  nature,  then  of  course  the  pantheistic  conclusion 
would  be  justified.  There  could  be  no  finite,  and  God 
would  be  alone.  But  that  is  not  the  idea  of  infinity  with 
which  we  have  to  deal.  It  is  not  with  “the  infinite’^  that  our 
existence  is  concerned;  it  is  with  the  infinite  Being,  God. 
The  infinity  which  the  Christian  doctrine  attributes  to  him  is 
not  of  such  nature  as  to  extinguish  or  absorb  finite  beings. 
We  speak  of  an  infinite  presence,  but  the  infinity  of  his  pres¬ 
ence  does  not  absorb  into  himself  that  which  it  embosoms, 
nor  does  the  infinity  of  his  knowledge  destroy  the  separate 
existence  of  that  which  he  knows.  The  infinite  God  is 
different  from  an  infinite  number,  embracing  all  numbers  in 
itself;  different  too  from  an  infinite  universe,  in  which  by  the 
very  definition  all  existing  things  would  be  included.  The 
Christian  doctrine  does  not  regard  him  as  the  sum  of  exist¬ 
ence.  In  the  Christian  light,  the  real  question  concerns  the 
relation  between  beings  of  limited  powers  and  the  Being 
whose  powers  are  all  unlimited.  God’s  infinity  is  his  supe¬ 
riority  to  all  limitations  in  all  the  powers  and  qualities  of  his 
being:  it  is  the  measureless  amplitude  of  the  powers  that 
make  up  his  living  personality:  it  is  the  boundlessness  of  his 
intelligence,  his  power,  his  moral  excellence,  and  his  suffi¬ 
ciency  for  the  fulfilling  of  all  relations.  A  kind  of  infinity 
that  would  leave  no  room  for  the  finite  may  be  conceivable 
to  us,  but  it  has  no  existence  in  him.  His  being  is  all-compre¬ 
hensive,  but  not  destructive  of  what  it  comprehends:  he 
embraces  all,  but  does  not  identify  it  with  himself. 

When  we  think  as  well  as  we  may  of  the  infinite  personality, 
or  of  the  free  and  unhindered  heart  and  mind  and  will, 
reaching  with  his  infinity  far  beyond  the  needs  of  all  his 


THE  INFINITE 


307 


creatures,  it  does  not  naturally  occur  to  us  that  his  infinity 
absorbs  our  personality.  Rather  does  it  seem  likely  to  pro¬ 
mote  and  favour  separateness  in  us.  If  self-conscious  and 
self-determining  life  is  the  type  set  for  all  other  spiritual 
existence  by  his  nature,  surely  the  infinity  of  such  life  in  him 
will  be  the  pledge  of  the  integrity  of  such  life  in  us.  The 
infinite  personality  is  the  sure  hope  of  the  finite  personality 
in  the  universe  of  God.  The  great  Person  who  has  brought 
forth  other  persons  will  surely  give  their  personality  its  due 
place  and  honour,  and  preserve  it  sacred  as  the  finite  likeness 
of  his  own.  The  infinite  Spirit  is  personal  in  the  full  and 
typical  sense,  and  his  personal  nature  is  the  guaranty  of  ours. 
Finite  spirits  bearing  the  likeness  of  God  are  selves,  to  whose 
personal  distinctness  the  infinite  One  is  not  a  destroyer  but  a 
friend.  At  the  same  time  it  is  true  in  a  sense  beyond  our 
explaining  that  his  being  embraces  theirs — a  mysterious  fact 
which  has  its  practical  value  in  this,  that  God  does  not  have 
to  go  out  of  himself  to  find  them,  or  they  to  go  out  of  them¬ 
selves  to  dwell  in  the  secret  of  his  presence.  The  spheres  of 
finite  and  infinite  so  blend  that  “spirit  with  Spirit  can  meet.^’ 

To  this  effect  experience  bears  testimony.  In  our  misun¬ 
derstanding  of  infinity  we  may  fear  that  we  shall  find  our¬ 
selves  only  unresponsible  parts  of  one  infinite  substance:  but 
experience  bears  witness  that  we  are  not.  Our  relation  to  the 
infinite  is  no  other  than  a  personal  relation.  The  distinct¬ 
ness  of  man  from  God  is  certified  by  the  facts  of  moral 
responsibility  and  significance  that  belong  to  our  life.  We  can 
consent  to  God,  or  we  can  resist  him  and  refuse  him  his  place. 
The  long  story  of  wills  is  in  part  a  story  of  accord  with  God, 
and  in  part  a  story  of  resistance,  only  too  often  positive  and 
determined.  Our  independence  makes  the  glory  and 
tragedy  of  our  career,  and  alike  in  the  glory  and  in  the  tragedy 
it  is  the  sign  of  our  personal  separateness  from  God.  And  be¬ 
cause  we  are  separate,  it  is  our  privilege  to  adore  the  Infinite. 

In  the  only  sense  in  which  Christian  Theology  needs  to 
dwell  upon  the  term,  the  infinite  God  is  the  Absolute.  The 


308 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


absolute  is  the  ultimate  in  thought  and  in  relations:  it  is  that 
in  which  all  relations  have  their  ground,  and  beyond  which 
thought  has  neither  power  nor  need  to  go.  This  is  precisely 
what  the  Christian  doctrine  declares  God  to  be.  With 
reference  to  relations,  God  is  the  ground  of  the  world,  the 
One  whose  existence  is  the  indispensable  condition  for  the 
existence  of  anything  else,  the  ultimate  source  from  which 
all  proceeds.  On  the  bosom  of  the  infinite  reposes  the  finite 
with  all  its  relations  and  affairs.  With  reference  to  thought 
which  explores  all  things  conceivable,  God  is  the  One  beyond 
whom  thought  cannot  go,  and  has  no  need  of  going.  Both 
in  thought  and  in  fact,  he  is  the  first  and  the  last,  the  original 
and  the  farthest,  beyond  whom  there  is  no  reason  to  search 
for  more.  He  exists  of  himself,  and  is  the  uttermost  than  can 
be  found  by  searching,  in  this  world  or  in  any  other.  Since 
his  existence  with  his  character  and  powers  is  sufficient  to 
account  for  all  else  that  exists,  he  is  the  uttermost  that  we 
need  to  find.  There  are  mysteries  for  us  in  the  universe,  but 
the  hope  for  solution  of  them  resides  in  his  nature.  He  is 
the  ground  of  truth.  He  is  the  ground  of  right.  He  is  the 
original  source  of  all  true  ideals  of  spiritual  existence.  He  is 
the  sole  fount  of  intellectual  power  and  spiritual  aspiration, 
and  the  great  Original  of  holiness  and  righteousness  and 
love.  Beyond  him  is  nothing,  from  him  is  all.  This  is  the 
view  of  God  that  Christian  thought  has  always  held,  now 
more  dimly  and  now  more  clearly,  but  it  still  awaits  larger 
exposition  and  worthier  appreciation  than  it  has  ever  yet 
received.  It  is  a  view  that  is  naturally  involved  in  all  clear 
theism,  and  is  of  the  very  substance  of  all  that  deserves  the 
name  of  monotheism.  The  Christian  faith  and  doctrine 
ascribe  all  glory  to  the  infinite  holy  and  gracious  Spirit,  the 
Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  ending,  in 
whom  all  live  and  move  and  have  their  being,  the  one  God 
of  all. 


THE  UNCHANGEABLE 


309 


8.  THE  UNCHANGEABLE 

The  unchangeableness  of  God  needs  no  separate  proof, 
after  we  have  recognized  his  self-existence  and  eternity.  The 
One  who  is  self-existent  and  eternal  cannot  change,  but  is 
ever  the  same.  The  universe  in  itself  is  mutable,  for  it  has 
no  independent  existence,  but  hangs  upon  a  will  that  is  not 
its  own.  Power  works  through  it,  not  from  it.  It  has  no 
wisdom  of  its  own,  but  may  become  this  or  that,  according  to 
the  wisdom  and  will  of  that  Other  whose  dependent  com¬ 
panion  it  is.  But  that  Other  is  immutable.  There  is  nothing 
that  has  power  to  affect  him  with  change.  His  independent, 
self-existent  being  is  beyond  the  reach  of  alteration,  and  from 
eternity  to  eternity  he  is  the  same.  So  the  best  Hebrew  faith  dis¬ 
cerned,  and  so  the  Christian  doctrine  has  always  set  him  forth. 

The  unchangeableness  of  God  is  not  in  his  methods,  but 
in  himself.  It  is  often  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  in  his  methods, 
and  were  sufficiently  well  illustrated  by  such  a  fact  as  the 
uniformity  of  nature.  The  one  God,  it  is  virtually  assumed, 
will  always  do  everything  in  the  same  way.  His  unchange¬ 
ableness  is  sometimes  conceived  as  a  kind  of  rigidity  or  im¬ 
mobility,  an  unalterableness  of  method  that  in  human  affairs 
we  should  associate  with  littleness  rather  than  with  greatness. 
We  are  acquainted  with  a  changelessness  which  is  really  a 
form  of  helplessness,  and  the  divine  immutability  has  some¬ 
times  been  set  forth  in  terms  almost  suggestive  of  this.  But 
very  unlike  this  is  the  quality  of  which  we  are  thinking.  The 
unchangeableness  of  God  in  himself  is  that  finality  and  unal¬ 
terableness  in  powers  and  character  which  belongs  to  eternal 
being.  Self-existence  is  once  for  all,  with  all  that  it  contains. 
As  manifested  in  his  action,  God’s  unchangeableness  is 
that  steady  operation  which  expresses  always  the  working  of 
one  mind  and  heart.  It  is  the  quality  in  God  by  virtue  of 
which  the  universe  through  its  whole  duration  is  truly  one  and 
continuous,  a  single  outworking  from  one  source.  It  is  the 
ground  in  God  of  his  own  consistency,  intellectual,  moral 


310 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  practical,  and  of  the  consistency  of  his  perpetual  and 
abiding  operation. 

Evidently  such  an  unchangeableness  as  this  has  nothing 
in  common  with  immobility.  It  suggests  no  singleness  in 
mode  of  working,  but  rather  has  in  it  all  the  breadth  and 
fulness  of  infinity.  It  is  entirely  consistent  with  endless 
variety  in  operation.  It  does  not  prevent  God  from  working 
differently  in  different  conditions,  or  employing  whatever 
method  may  suit  his  purpose  best.  The  greatness  of  God 
is  an  infinite  versatility,  rendering  natural  to  him  an  infinite 
variety  of  action,  adapted  to  the  infinite  variety  of  needs  and 
occasions.  We  understand  the  liberty  of  the  versatile  and 
exercise  it  ourselves,  within  our  limits :  surely  then  we  should 
welcome  it  among  our  thoughts  of  God.  In  fact,  we  do  make 
use  of  it  there.  We  say  that  in  forgiving  a  sinner  the  attitude 
of  God  toward  the  man  is  changed,  and  yet  no  one  under¬ 
stands  this  change  to  be  inconsistent  with  his  immutability. 
Rather  is  it  required  by  his  immutablity;  for  God  is  unalter¬ 
able  in  the  quality  that  will  bless  the  needy  and  deliver  the 
sinful  at  every  opportunity.  The  change  is  not  in  God,  but 
in  the  man,  and  in  the  moral  situation  that  conditions  God’s 
attitude  toward  the  man.  Versatility  in  action  is  no  sign  of 
feebleness  of  will  or  fickleness  of  purpose:  it  may  be  a  sign 
of  firmness  of  will  and  inflexibility  of  purpose.  We  know 
very  well  that  a  determined  man,  holding  a  settled  purpose, 
will  change  his  method  of  action,  as  often  as  steadfastness 
in  his  purpose  requires  the  change.  He  is  certain  to  employ 
means  after  means  and  method  after  method,  if  only  he  is 
unchangeably  determined  to  accomplish  an  important  pur¬ 
pose  that  sweeps  through  long  time  and  varying  conditions. 
The  very  immutability  of  the  purpose,  and  of  him  who  holds 
it,  leads  to  the  use  of  as  many  means  and  methods  as  the  case 
may  demand.  On  this  familiar  principle  the  unchangeable¬ 
ness  of  God  prescribes  no  enforced  uniformity  for  his  methods, 
and  is  attended  by  nothing  of  that  persistent  immobility  which 
in  men  is  so  often  a  sign  of  weakness.  Just  because  he  is 
unchangeably  the  same,  “  God  fulfils  himself  in  many  ways.” 


TRANSCENDENCE 


311 


The  unchangeableness  upon  which  the  Christian  doctrine 
has  most  occasion  to  dwell  is  of  course  in  the  realm  of  char¬ 
acter.  It  is  when  the  divine  character  is  perceived  as  it  is 
shown  in  Christ  that  immutability  becomes  the  theme  of  joy. 
It  means  that  God  has  always  been  and  will  always  be  the 
holy,  righteous  and  gracious  God,  who  is  absolutely  worthy 
of  all  confidence  and  love.  His  goodness  has  not  been  de¬ 
veloped,  and  will  never  be  altered:  from  everlasting  to  ever¬ 
lasting  he  is  the  same,  with  character  unchangeable.  Such 
immutability  is  the  hope  of  the  universe.  The  dependent  and 
mutable  rests  upon  the  bosom  of  the  self-existent  and  change¬ 
less,  and  finds  there  its  stability  and  hope.  In  the  spiritual 
life  of  men,  the  unchangeableness  of  God  is  ground  for 
complete  and  unalterable  confidence.  Both  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  in  the  New,  the  spirit  of  his  word,  “I  change 
not”  (Mai.  iii.  8),  brings  the  inspiration  of  undying  hope  to 
all  that  is  good.  It  seems  pathetic  that  in  the  long  course  of 
religion  the  God  who  is  always  the  same  has  been  so  variously 
conceived  by  men.  Amid  the  incessant  variations  of  thought 
concerning  him  it  has  often  seemed  as  if  there  could  be  no 
sure  and  unalterable  reality  for  men  to  discover.  But  the 
variableness  has  been  in  human  knowledge,  not  in  that 
which  men  were  seeking  to  know.  Within  the  darkness 
stands  the  One  whom  we  seek,  himself  always  desiring  not 
only  to  be  sought  but  to  be  found,  and  welcoming  every  eye 
that  looks  to  him,  and  every  gain  in  trueness  of  vision. 
The  assurance  given  in  Christ  that  God  is  the  same  for¬ 
ever  comes  with  reassuring  power  to  every  heart  that  discerns 
him  in  the  Christian  light. 

9.  TRANSCENDENCE 

We  have  spoken  of  the  two  units  of  existence,  or  of  God 
and  the  universe,  and  have  thus  distinguished  all  that  exists 
or  ever  can  exist  into  two  parts  that  differ  profoundly  from 
each  other.  However  unable  we  may  be  to  define  satisfac¬ 
torily,  there  stands  an  immeasurable  difference  between  God 


312 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  all  that  is  not  God.  But  when  we  have  affirmed  this 
great  distinction,  it  is  natural  to  inquire  how  these  two  units 
of  existence  are  related  to  each  other.  We  wish  to  judge 
them  justly  in  their  relative  magnitude,  and  we  desire  if 
possible  to  obtain  some  conception  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  practically  related.  Which  is  the  greater  of  the 
two,  and  what  do  we  mean  when  we  say  that  one  is  greater 
than  the  other?  This  is  one  of  our  questions,  and  an¬ 
other  is.  How  intimate  is  their  mutual  interaction,  or  the 
action  of  one  upon  the  other?  In  our  present  study  these 
inquiries  are  undertaken  not  so  much  from  a  speculative 
interest  in  the  result  as  from  the  desire  to  know  God  more 
truly  by  viewing  him  in  his  relation  to  that  which  is  not 
himself. 

In  comparatively  recent  times  two  words.  Immanence  and 
Transcendence,  have  come  into  common  use  for  setting  forth 
the  relation  between  God  and  the  universe.  They  are  not 
new  words,  and  still  less  are  they  expressive  of  new  ideas,  but 
of  late  they  have  apparently  found  a  new  usefulness,  appeal¬ 
ing  helpfully  to  the  needs  of  religious  thought.  Whether  they 
will  always  remain  as  acceptable  and  helpful  as  they  appear 
to  be  at  present  is  a  question  that  we  have  no  need  to  answer, 
but  for  the  service  of  present-day  thought  they  are  useful 
words,  and  they  are  well  adapted  to  the  statement  of  truth 
that  is  now  in  hand.  In  the  word  Transcendence  comparison 
is  affirmed  between  the  two  units  of  existence,  while  the  com¬ 
panion-word  Immanence  tells  of  the  closeness  of  their  mutual 
relation.  The  first  asserts  that  the  one  unit  transcends  or 
exceeds  the  other;  the  second,  that  the  greater  inhabits  and 
pervades  the  less.  Great  as  they  are,  these  appear  to  be 
simple  and  obvious  statements,  properly  implied  in  any 
monotheism.  Yet  there  is  need  of  a  certain  amount  of 
definition,  for  there  are  more  senses  than  one  in  which  God 
may  be  conceived  as  immanent  and  as  transcendent.  The 
clearness  and  strength  of  our  doctrine  of  God  will  depend 
somewhat  upon  the  nature  of  our  conclusions  upon  these  two 
aspects  of  his  being. 


TRANSCENDENCE 


313 


At  present  we  speak  of  Transcendence,  endeavouring  to 
answer  the  question  what  we  mean  when  we  say  that  God  is 
transcendent  in  his  relation  to  the  universe.  It  is  necessary 
first  to  remove  some  ambiguity,  by  pointing  out  a  sense  in 
which  Transcendence  is  not  to  be  understood.  We  have 
said  that  the  word  transcendence  institutes  the  great  compari¬ 
son  between  God  and  the  universe,  and  asserts  the  superiority 
of  God.  But  this  superiority  or  transcendence  of  God  has 
sometimes  been  interpreted  in  ways  that  are  impossible  in  the 
light  of  our  present  knowledge.  Under  a  variety  of  influences 
it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  transcendent  God  was  represented 
as  a  God  outside  the  world  and  above  it,  separated  from  an 
order  so  inferior  as  to  be  unworthy  of  his  immediate  presence. 

Perhaps  this  way  of  thinking  had  its  starting-point  in  the 
thoughts  of  primitive  man.  When  the  earth  was  supposed 
to  be  flat  and  motionless,  it  was  not  unnatural  to  conceive 
of  the  Supreme  as  locally  higher  than  man.  The  overarching 
heaven  was  regarded  as  the  abode  of  God,  and  worship  was 
directed  to  One  who  was  directly  overhead.  Hence  men 
looked  up  in  worship,  or  else  bowed  in  reverence  before  that 
which  was  high.  The  habit  of  placing  God  physically  above  us 
has  outlived  its  usefulness  without  losing  its  power.  By  great 
multitudes  of  Christians,  inheriting  from  the  ancient  past, 
he  is  still  imagined  as  overhead  and  far  away.  General 
antiquity  has  bequeathed  even  to  us  the  conception  of  a  dis¬ 
tant  God. 

When  reflection  had  entered  the  field,  the  world  came  to 
be  regarded  as  material;  and  then  it  followed  that  God  was 
set  in  contrast  with  it  in  his  quality  as  a  Spirit.  Spirit  is  of  a 
higher  order  than  matter,  it  was  said,  and  God  is  the  greatest 
Spirit,  contrasted  with  matter  in  the  highest  degree.  His 
attitude  toward  the  material  world  must  be  determined  by 
his  superiority  and  by  his  consciousness  of  it.  The  one 
pure  Spirit  must  certainly  be  removed  from  contact  with  the 
material  world  and  order.  He  dwells  apart,  untouched  by 
that  which  is  so  profoundly  in  contrast  with  his  nature. 


314 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


This  conception  of  transcendence  is  confirmed  and  intensi¬ 
fied  when  to  the  obvious  difference  between  matter  and 
spirit  is  added  the  doctrine,  long  held,  that  matter  is  the  seat 
of  evil,  and  is  itself  corrupt.  The  human  body  has  been  taken 
to  be  the  seat  and  provoking  cause  of  sin ;  and  from  this  start¬ 
ing-point  it  has  been  thought  that  matter  in  all  its  forms  is 
contaminated  by  evil,  or  else  is  so  suggestive  of  evil  to  the 
spirit  as  to  be  condemnable.  Then  once  more  it  naturally 
follows  that  the  high  and  pure  God  can  have  nothing  to  do 
with  a  material  world.  It  has  been  held  that  he  cannot  have 
created  matter  by  direct  action,  but  must  have  brought  it 
into  existence  through  intermediate  agencies.  Between  the 
purity  of  God  and  the  production  of  so  corrupt  a  thing  there 
must  have  been  a  line  of  mediators,  gradually  descending  in 
moral  quality  as  distance  from  the  holy  source  increased, 
until  at  length  there  was  a  being  far  enough  removed  from 
the  divine  perfection  to  create  the  material  world  with  all 
its  corruptness.  With  such  an  idea  of  the  beginning,  and 
often  without  the  help  of  such  an  idea,  it  has  been  held  that 
God  must  always  communicate  with  the  world  through 
mediating  agencies.  Revelation  as  well  as  creation  must 
needs  be  mediated,  since  God’s  greatness  and  purity  really 
detach  him  from  human  affairs.  There  must  be  messengers 
sent  to  bring  his  word  to  men,  and  they  must  be  supernaturally 
certified  as  the  genuine  representatives  of  him  in  whose  name 
they  come.  Angels  owe  very  much  of  their  prominence  in 
the  history  of  religion  to  this  conception  of  the  absence  of  God 
on  account  of  the  unworthiness  of  the  world :  there  are  spirits 
who  dwell  with  him,  and  they  can  come  forth  to  bear  his 
messages.  Prophets,  apostles  or  preachers  have  been  deemed 
essential  for  divine  communication,  and  where  no  human 
messenger  could  be  found  it  has  been  very  difficult  for  Chris¬ 
tians  to  believe  that  God  had  any  means  of  spiritual  communi¬ 
cation  with  men.  Some  of  these  ideas,  once  powerful,  have 
passed  away  from  the  place  of  accepted  doctrine,  but  they 
have  left  their  influence  behind  them,  even  until  now.  The 
transcendence  of  God,  by  whatever  name  it  might  be  called, 


TRANSCENDENCE 


315 


has  meant  not  only  his  superiority,  but  his  dwelling  apart  from 
that  which  was  unworthy  of  his  presence. 

Conscience  has  been  a  ready  witness  in  support  of  this 
doctrine.  All  serious  consciousness  of  sin  has  brought  a 
new  sense  of  the  remoteness  of  God.  It  was  the  sense  of 
human  sinfulness  that  suggested  the  moral  corruptness  of 
the  material  world,  but  still  more  forcibly  did  it  suggest  the 
necessary  separation  between  God  and  the  sinful  humanity. 
That  a  pure  God  can  have  nothing  directly  to  do  with  sinful 
men  is  a  conviction  very  ancient,  perpetually  supported  by 
the  testimony  of  guilty  conscience.  Conscience  approves 
of  the  separation,  too,  declaring  that  God  ought  not  to  dwell 
with  sinners — so  deeply  does  guilty  conscience  misunderstand 
the  highest  virtue  of  God.  All  temples  of  God  shut  away 
in  holy  solitude,  and  all  organized  priesthoods  with  their 
indispensable  mediation,  bear  witness  to  the  same  effect. 
The  withdrawal  of  God  is  taken  as  the  sign  of  his  worthiness 
and  the  unworthiness  of  men. 

Thus  various  influences  have  conspired  to  fix  an  unhappy 
definition  of  transcendence.  The  ethereality  of  spirit  in 
contrast  with  the  grossness  of  matter,  the  purity  of  God  as 
against  the  vileness  of  sin,  the  justice  of  God  as  against  the 
guilt  of  sin,  and  the  ancient  association  of  excellence  with 
elevation,  have  all  helped  to  identify  transcendence  with 
separation. 

If  the  word  transcendence  could  not  be  detached  from  such 
associations,  it  would  be  necessary  to  drop  it  from  use  in 
Christian  Theology.  Such  conceptions  of  the  remoteness  of 
God  were  natural  once,  but  modern  knowledge  conspires 
with  the  spirit  of  Christ  to  condemn  them  as  unworthy  of 
even  a  waning  influence.  All  condemnation  of  matter  as 
corrupt  or  contaminating  belongs  to  the  deadages.  What¬ 
ever  it  is,  matter  is  innocent.  The  idea  that  for  any  reason 
matter  and  spirit  are  so  incompatible  that  spirit  must  hold 
itself  aloof  is  antiquated  and  can  never  renew  its  youth. 
Whatever  the  difference  between  matter  and  spirit  may  be, 
it  is  no  difference  that  calls  for  separation.  On  the  contrary, 


316  ' 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  spiritual  or  psychical  quality  is  now  discovered  in  the 
mysterious  depths  of  what  we  have  called  dead  matter,  and 
the  growing  doctrine  is  that  the  universe  is  pervaded  through 
and  through  by  the  quality  that  we  name  spiritual.  When 
we  come  to  religious  meanings  the  case  is  not  less  strong. 

•  Upon  the  idea  that  because  of  his  superiority  God  can 
have  no  contact  with  an  evil  world,  the  Christian  revelation 
puts  an  absolute  negative.  This  is  an  ancient  thought  of 
ignorance  and  error,  misjudging  God,  as  sinfulness  is  sure 
to  do,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  Christianity  of 
Jesus  is  an  organized  denial  and  refutation  of  it.  The 
Christian  doctrine  proclaims  God  loving  the  sinful  world, 
seeking  moral  entrance  to  its  deepest  life,  and  not  content 
till  he  has  drawn  it  into  his  own  holy  fellowship.  That  he  is 
withdrawn  or  shut  away  from  the  universe  by  his  superiority 
to  it,  the  Christian  doctrine  absolutely  denies.  His  very 
superiority  is  of  a  kind  that  renders  that  impossible. 

The  true  idea  of  transcendence  is  before  us  as  soon  as  we 
consistently  treat  the  term  as  a  word  of  comparison  between 
God  and  all  that  is  not  God.  The  comparison  is  not  between 
this  lower  world  and  his  dwelling-place  above,  and  the  term 
conveys  no  suggestions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  God  com¬ 
municates  with  his  works.  It  is  God  that  is  transcendent,  not 
his  abode  or  his  method,  and  the  transcendence  is  not  local,  or 
quantitative  in  any  sense,  or  occasioned  by  the  moral  condition 
of  the  world,  or  established  by  any  special  will  of  God.  The 
point  is  simply  that  of  the  two  units  of  existence  one  transcends, 
exceeds,  excels  the  other,  and  the  difference  is  a  real  difference 
in  the  objects  that  are  compared.  God  is  greater  than  all 
besides,  and  in  every  sense  superior.  The  universe  stands 
over  against  him,  but  not  as  his  equal :  he  stands  over  against 
the  universe,  but  as  One  who  surpasses  it :  and  there  are  qual¬ 
ities  in  which  we  can  distinctly  understand  that  his  superiority 
consists.  And  it  is  when  we  fix  our  eyes  upon  these  surpassing 
glories  of  God  that  we  come  nearest  to  seeing  him  as  he  is. 

In  order  to  see  what  these  qualities  of  transcendence  are. 


TRANSCENDENCE 


317 


we  have  only  to  recall  what  has  lately  been  before  us  in  our 
study.  It  may  be  said  with  truth  that  our  entire  study  of 
God  thus  far  has  been  a  preparation  for  the  assertion  and 
defining  of  his  transcendence.  If  we  compare  the  God  whom 
we  have  been  considering  with  the  universe,  or  with  all  that  is 
not  himself,  we  see  at  once  wherein  his  superiority  consists. 

God  is  a  Spirit,  a  conscious  and  self-directing  Being. 
He  knows,  and  he  loves.  He  gives  himself,  and  is  a  com¬ 
municating  Spirit  toward  all.  He  is  a  Spirit  so  great  that  he 
has  to  do  with  all,  and  all  have  to  do  with  him.  All  the  per¬ 
sonal  qualities  are  his  in  that  fulness  which  must  belong  to 
the  typical  and  perfect  person.  But  the  universe  is  not  a 
spirit.  It  is  full  of  the  evidences  of  spiritual  activity,  and 
contains  innumerable  spirits  within  itself,  but  in  itself  it  is 
neither  communicating  nor  conscious.  As  a  whole  it  has 
neither  knowledge,  will,  nor  character.  The  spirits  that  it 
contains,  precious  as  their  being  is,  are  but  infants  in  person¬ 
ality,  in  comparison  with  the  perfect  Person.  We  often  say 
that  any  one  of  them  has  value  that  transcends  the  entire 
non-spiritual  part  of  the  universe,  and  in  a  sense  this  is  true; 
but  when  we  think  of  him  who  is  the  perfect  type  of  all  these 
minor  personalities,  no  thought  can  do  justice  to  the  superior¬ 
ity  of  this  one  Spirit  of  an  infinite  majesty  who  is  one  of  the 
two  units  of  existence.  Since  one  unit  is  a  Spirit  and  the 
other  is  not,  and  the  one  Spirit  is  perfect  while  all  other  spirits 
are  but  children,  we  begin  to  see  the  meaning  of  his  transcend¬ 
ence.  It  is  the  transcendence  first  of  Life,  and  then  of  the 
perfect  Life. 

This  is  not  the  whole  of  his  transcendence.  We  have  already 
looked  upon  God  as  the  source,  or  Creator,  of  that  with 
which  he  must  be  compared.  We  have  seen  that  he  and  he 
alone  exists  in  and  of  himself,  independently  and  without 
source  or  origin,  while  the  universe,  his  sole  companion  in 
existence,  exists  simply  and  solely  because  of  him.  He  is 
the  Creator,  it  is  the  creature.  His  is  the  will,  and  the 
universe  is  the  response.  In  self-existence  and  creatorhood 
he  stands  transcendent.  If  we  wish  to  bring  him  into  com- 


318 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


parison,  we  can  only  compare  him  with  his  own  work,  which 
without  him  could  have  no  being.  When  we  look  beyond 
this  practical  relation,  so  to  call  it,  with  the  kind  of  transcend¬ 
ence  which  it  implies,  we  behold  him  in  his  self-existence  as 
the  Eternal;  not  only  without  beginning  and  without  end  of 
being,  but  as  having  in  himself  and  in  his  life  the  eternal 
quality,  timeless,  all-inclusive,  raised  above  all  contingencies, 
evermore  unchangeable  yet  infinitely  versatile,  with  life 
worth  living  for  its  own  sake.  Contrasted  with  him  stands 
the  universe,  dependent,  contingent,  variable,  in  perpetual 
bondage  to  succession,  unfolding,  developing,  rising  and 
falling  in  perpetual  change,  unaware  of  itself  as  a  whole, 
nowhere  containing  a  comprehensive  knowledge  of  its  own 
end  and  way,  incapable  of  ever  understanding  itself.  God 
excels  the  universe  in  the  nature  of  his  being.  And  in  all  in 
which  he  excels  he  is  infinite,  absolutely  unlimited  and  free 
in  the  exercise  of  his  powers,  while  in  contrast  the  universe  is 
finite,  limited  in  all  its  powers  and  acts  and  possibilities.  If 
we  venture  to  guess  that  it  is  infinite  in  extent  or  duration, 
still  even  then  we  shall  call  it  infinite  only  in  some  minor 
aspects  of  being,  while  God  is  infinite  in  infinitely  higher 
respects.  Infinite  ability  to  know  and  act  infinitely  excels 
infinite  extent  or  number  or  duration,  being  an  infinity 
in  the  nobler  realm  of  the  spirit;  and  God  has  the  whole  of 
a  spirit’s  possible  infinity. 

In  this  manner  does  God  transcend  the  universe,  and  yet 
the  crowning  word  still  remains  to  be  spoken.  When  we 
pass  from  the  universe  to  him  with  whom  we  are  comparing 
it,  we  come  for  the  first  time  to  the  glory  of  the  perfect  char¬ 
acter.  Over  against  the  sum  of  secondary  existence  stands 
the  great  primal  One,  whose  goodness  is  his  glory.  The 
material  universe  has  no  character,  of  course:  the  spiritual 
universe  contains  developing  characters,  good  and  bad:  but 
God  stands  over  against  the  whole  as  the  eternal  goodness 
loving  in  wisdom.  All  that  is  worthy  to  be  glorified  in  char¬ 
acter  is  glorious  in  him,  and  he  is  the  transcendent  One  as 
being  the  One  in  whom  all  that  ought  to  exist  in  character 


TRANSCENDENCE 


319 


exists  without  imperfection  and  beyond  degree.  The  perfect 
character  is  the  most  transcendent  of  facts. 

V^ith  such  an  idea  of  transcendence  in  mind,  we  may  recall 
an  objection  that  is  sometimes  felt.  It  is  sometimes  thought 
absurd  for  us  to  speak  of  God  as  greater  than  the  universe, 
when  the  universe  itself  is  immeasurably  greater  than  we  can 
think.  So  it  might  be,  we  must  confess,  if  the  greatness  that 
we  were  attributing  to  God  were  of  the  same  kind  with  that 
of  the  universe.  But  it  is  not.  We  have  been  attributing  to 
God  greatness  of  a  kind  that  is  his  alone.  When  we  speak 
of  a  greatness  that  includes,  besides  eternal  self-existence  and 
perfect  character,  the  ability  to  conceive,  to  produce,  to  sus¬ 
tain,  to  love  and  to  rule  the  universe,  we  set  forth  a  genuine 
transcendence,  not  in  size  or  extent,  but  in  nature,  of  which 
it  is  perfectly  legitimate  for  us  to  speak. 

It  is  finally  to  be  added,  completing  the  definition  of 
transcendence,  that  God  is  adequate  to  his  universe,  and 
more.  Such  a  God  does  not  need  to  put  forth  all  that  he  is 
in  producing  it  and  maintaining  its  existence.  He  is  not 
exhausted  by  its  demands,  nor  can  he  ever  be.  If  it  were 
vaster  than  it  is,  still  it  could  not  be  too  vast  for  him.  Beyond 
all  requirements  that  may  be  made  by  that  which  is  not  him¬ 
self,  there  remains  in  him  a  fulness  and  power,  a  reserve  as 
we  should  say  if  we  were  speaking  of  human  affairs,  a  surplus 
of  being,  sufficient  for  more  than  the  universe  can  demand. 
Such  language  represents  God  after  the  manner  of  men, 
but  the  representation  is  a  true  one,  for  which  there  is  no 
need  to  apologize.  Pantheistic  and  semi-pantheistic  concep¬ 
tions  place  God  within  the  universe  and  make  him  equal  to 
it,  the  mere  life  of  it,  and  not  greater.  All  that  he  is  it  ex¬ 
presses,  or  will  at  some  time  express.  But  the  Christian 
religion  has  no  place  for  such  a  doctrine,  or  for  any  of  its 
results.  It  beholds  God  so  infinitely  superior  in  rank  and 
quality  to  all  that  is  not  himself  as  to  be  more  than  equal  to  all 
that  its  existence  requires  of  him.  As  a  man  is  greater  than 
his  works,  so,  much  more,  is  God.  Upon  him  as  the  greater 


320 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


One  all  other  existence  is  absolutely  dependent,  but  he  is  not 
dependent  upon  it,  since  he  is  of  a  higher  order  of  being. 
All  glories  of  the  universe  are  but  broken  lights  of  him,  and 
if  it  should  attain  to  such  perfection  as  belongs  to  its  nature, 
still  its  glory  would  fall  immeasurably  short  of  his,  and  he 
would  be  holding  his  perfected  work  in  the  larger  embrace  of 
his  transcendent  power  and  love. 

Thus  the  doctrine  of  transcendence  simply  affirms  the 
superiority,  independence  and  super-sufficiency  of  God.  It 
declares  that  which  worship  has  always  recognized  with 
humble  joy.  It  is  an  essential  element  in  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine,  and  the  God  of  the  Christian  faith  is  such  a  God  as  it 
sets  forth.  As  a  matter  of  experience,  we  know  that  our 
conception  of 'God’s  greatness  grows  with  our  knowledge  of 
the  universe:  the  great  word  all,  indefinitely  expansible,  has 
been  immensely  enlarged  already  in  our  thoughts  and  is 
growing  every  day,  and  the  thought  of  God  constantly  ex¬ 
pands  with  it  and  beyond  it.  We  see  God  greater  than  his 
works  on  every  side.  We  may  think  of  this  enlargement  of 
our  thought  of  God  as  a  result  of  our  advancing  knowledge; 
but  while  it  is  that  it  is  also  more — it  is  a  constant  approxima¬ 
tion  to  the  truth.  God  really  is  greater  than  all,  in  his  rela¬ 
tion  to  all  and  in  the  quality  of  his  being,  and  this  is  his  tran¬ 
scendence.  Therefore  it  is  that  we  may  reasonably  trust, 
adore  and  worship  him,  counting  him  to  be  “able  to  do 
exceeding  abundantly  above  all  that  we  ask  or  think,”  not 
only  now  but  evermore.  In  his  transcendence  God  is  inex¬ 
haustible  :  this  is  the  glory  and  comfort  of  our  Christian  faith. 

10.  IMMANENCE 

That  great  reality  which  is  the  counterpart  to  the  Trans¬ 
cendence  of  God  is  usually  called  Immanence,  in  modern 
times.  It  is  true  that  there  are  objections  to  the  name.  It 
savours  of  philosophy  rather  than  of  religion,  for  in  this  use 
it  is  distinctly  a  modern  term,  and  has  not  yet  had  time  to 
win  its  religious  associations.  Moreover,  it  is  not  without 
ambiguity,  it  seems  to  promise  more  of  definiteness  than  it 


IMMANENCE 


321 


really  brings  to  the  subject,  and  in  actual  usage  it  has  often 
brought  a  suggestion  of  pantheism.  For  such  reasons  one 
could  wish  that  some  other  word  might  be  found  to  take  its 
place.  But  no  more  satisfactory  word  is  at  hand.  A  term 
of  strict  precision  would  not  correspond  to  the  meaning  that 
is  to  be  expressed:  the  suggestion  of  pantheism  does  not 
belong  in  the  word:  and  what  we  know  of  God  will  in  due 
time  bring  in  the  religious  significance  that  we  may  feel  to 
be  lacking.  If  we  use  the  name  without  being  bound  to  it, 
it  will  serve  us  well. 

The  Christian  thought  that  meets  us  here  is  as  simple  as 
it  is  great  and  satisfying.  We  have  thought  of  God  as  trans¬ 
cendent,  superior,  dominant,  in  comparison  with  all  that  is 
not  himself;  and  now  we  are  to  add  that  the  God  who 
transcends  all  is  present  with  all — he  inhabits,  pervades, 
moves,  inspires,  the  universe.  Of  the  two  units  of  existence 
the  One,  infinitely  excelling  the  other  in  grade  and  quality 
of  being,  maintains  and  ministers  to  the  other  by  intimate 
inward  operation.  The  Self-existent  sustains  the  contingent, 
the  Creator  abides  with  the  creation,  the  eternal  Goodness 
loving  in  wisdom  is  with  all  that  is  not  himself. 

It  is  sometimes  thought  that  transcendence  and  immanence 
are  opposite  conceptions,  inconsistent  with  each  other. 
Often  they  have  been  suspiciously  set  over  against  each  other, 
as  if  we  should  need  to  make  our  choice  between  them.  But 
that  was  because  of  that  false  idea  of  transcendence,  according 
to  which  God’s  superiority  removed  him  from  contact  with 
the  world.  Between  the  actual  transcendence  of  God  over 
the  universe  and  his  real  indwelling  there  is  no  shadow  of 
incompatibility.  If  God  is  transcendent  as  the  self-existent 
and  creative  Spirit  who  is  love,  nothing  can  be  more  certain 
than  that  he  will  stand  in  intimate  relation  with  that  which 
he  creates.  The  two  facts  are  natural  counterparts,  and  the 
true  doctrine  of  God  embraces  both. 

We  need  have  no  doubt  as  to  the  order  in  which  the  two 
should  enter  into  our  doctrine  of  God.  Transcendence  is 


322 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


first.  When  we  consider  the  two  units  of  existence  in  their 
relation  to  each  other,  it  is  right  that  we  should  begin  with  the 
original  and  the  greater.  It  is  the  transcendence  that  gives 
the  immanence  its  meaning,  and  its  reality  too.  The  Chris¬ 
tian  thought  is  not  so  much  that  the  immanent  God  is  trans¬ 
cendent,  as  it  is  that  the  transcendent  God  is  immanent.  We 
sing  the  praise  of  the  all-excelling  God  who  abides  with  all. 
We  might  attempt  the  opposite  order,  and  say  that  he  who 
abides  with  all  surpasses  all:  he  who  inhabits  the  creation 
surpasses  the  creation.  In  that  case  we  should  be  undertak¬ 
ing  an  argument,  and  assuming  a  burden  of  proof.  But 
when  we  infer  immanence  from  transcendence,  God’s  in¬ 
dwelling  from  his  greatness,  we  are  simply  drawing  a  natural 
conclusion.  What  we  speak  of  under  the  name  of  immanence 
is  a  real  presence,  with  all  that  the  presence  of  such  a  God 
must  mean;  and  such  a  presence  needs  no  proof,  when  once 
we  have  first  in  mind  the  greatness,  power  and  character 
of  which  the  word  transcendence  tells. 

Indeed,  instead  of  needing  special  proof  of  it,  we  find  such 
a  real  pervading  presence  urged  upon  us  from  so  many 
quarters  that  recognition  of  it  cannot  be  escaped. 

For  one  thing,  we  are  reaping  here  the  benefit  that  is 
involved  in  the  recent  enlargement  of  the  universe  in  our 
thought.  When  the  created  universe  was  conceived  as  small, 
it  was  natural  and  easy  to  localize  God  in  a  dwelling-place 
beyond  its  limits.  But  at  present  we  have  no  power  of 
imagining  anything  beyond  the  universe,  and  localizing  of 
God  beyond  the  limit  of  his  works  has  become  impossible. 
It  is  true  that  many  hymns  and  prayers  still  represent  the 
sky  as  his  abode,  but  this  is  well  known  to  be  only  the  sur¬ 
vival  of  old  forms  of  thought  that  could  not  now  arise. 
Besides  what  it  owes  to  the  enrichment  of  the  conception 
of  God  himself,  religion  is  indebted  also  to  changes  that 
have  occurred  in  the  conception  of  the  universe.  All  op¬ 
portunity  to  think  of  an  infinitely  distant  home  of  God  is 
crowded  out,  and  it  is  by  a  practical  necessity  that  we  look 


IMMANENCE 


323 


upon  him  as  a  pervading  presence.  If  we  are  to  think  of  him 
as  anywhere,  we  are  compelled  to  think  of  him  as  everywhere. 

We  are  indebted  also  to  the  change  that  has  come  upon  the 
manner  of  conceiving  the  method  of  the  universe.  When 
God  was  pictured  as  outside  and  afar,  there  had  been  little 
observation  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  world  was  con¬ 
ducted,  and  it  was  easily  assumed  that  God  governed  it 
from  without.  The  ideas  of  divine  administration  that  were 
generally  characteristic  of  Deism  were  by  no  means  out  of 
the  question.  But  at  present  it  is  apparent  that  the  universe 
operates,  or  is  operated,  from  within.  The  forces  that  are 
found  at  work  are  resident  forces,  existing  and  acting  within 
the  system.  It  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  this  is  all  that  we 
can  know  about  them,  but  this  we  do  know.  The  universe 
has  the  appearance  of  a  self-working  system.  Not  only  its 
vastness,  but  its  internal  self-sufficiency,  forbids  us  to  think 
of  it  as  controlled  from  without.  If  God  is  the  operant  force 
of  the  great  system,  and  it  is  operated  from  within,  then 
certainly  he  is  within,  with  his  operative  will  and  energy. 
Thus  by  the  modern  judgment  as  to  the  actual  method  we 
are  bidden  welcome  God  into  his  world,  and  look  upon  him 
as  governing  that  which  is  not  himself  by  a  most  intimate 
and  efficient  presence. 

These  conclusions  from  the  modern  knowledge  fall  in  with 
what  we  know  of  God  in  the  Christian  light.  Under  the 
Christian  influence  we  are  sure  that  his  character  is  determi¬ 
nant  of  his  relation  with  other  being.  We  cannot  minutely 
describe  the  relation  in  which  his  character  will  place  him 
with  his  universe,  but  we  may  safely  be  sure  that  the  God  of 
the  Christian  faith  will  hold  himself  intimately  near  to  his 
creatures.  If  he  has  given  existence,  he  is  not  a  God  who 
will  be  aloof  from  it.  In  Christ  he  is  known  as  a  self-impart¬ 
ing  God,  ever  seeking  the  closest  intimacy  with  men.  That 
is  his  nature.  In  creation  he  has  revealed  his  mind,  in  his 
Son  he  has  manifested  himself  among  men,  and  as  the 
Holy  Spirit  he  dwells  with  the  soul  in  the  intimacy  of  spiritual 
fellowship;  and  this  closest  fellowship  of  all  is  the  one  that 


324 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


fulfils  his  intention  for  mankind.  His  gospel  shows  him  near 
to  his  world,  seeking  to  be  known  in  his  nearness.  When  his 
will  is  fully  done,  God  will  be  all  in  all — everything  to  every 
one.  To  any  who  are  not  at  home  with  the  Christian  view 
and  feeling  this  ground  of  confidence  in  the  divine  indwelling 
may  not  appeal;  but  to  the  Christian  heart  it  is  the  most 
certain  of  realities  that  God  is  near  to  his  creation,  bear¬ 
ing  upon  his  bosom  that  which  he  has  called  into  being,  ever 
serving  the  [universe  of  which  he  is  Father.  The  necessi¬ 
ties  of  modern  knowledge  require  us  to  believe  in  such  a 
God  if  we  believe  in  any  God  at  all,  and  this  is  the  God 
whom  we  already  know  in  the  Christian  gospel.  He  is  an 
abiding,  indwelling  God,  concealed  in  that  which  reveals  him, 
manifest  without  in  the  results  of  invisible  operation  within. 

Thus  the  greatness  of  the  universe,  the  method  of  its 
operation,  the  character  of  God  and  the  nature  of  his  gospel 
all  conspire  to  give  us  a  doctrine  of  real  indwelling.  By  all 
these  ways  we  are  led  again  to  the  conviction  with  which  we 
began,  that  the  transcendent  God  is  immanent  also.  We  are 
sure  that  the  greater  unit  of  existence  will  be  with  the  less: 
the  life  of  God  will  blend  mysteriously  with  the  life  that  he 
has  caused  to  be. 

This  real  presence  of  God  has  long  been  known  to  faith, 
and  has  been  commemorated  in  Theology  under  the  name  of 
Omnipresence.  The  omnipresence  of  God,  familiar  in 
doctrine,  is  of  course  included  in  that  which  is  meant  by  the 
newer  name  Immanence.  The  older  name  has  not  been 
deemed  sufficient  for  the  later  thought,  and  yet  it  is  a  noble 
name  when  its  full  meaning  is  perceived.  It  may  be  that 
under  the  title  The  Real  Presence  all  that  it  is  necessary  to 
say  of  Immanence  might  be  said.  At  any  rate  this  last  title 
will  be  helpful  to  our  thought. 

It  is  common  to  count  the  omnipresence  of  God  among  the 
natural  attributes,  in  distinction  from  the  moral  attributes 
that  constitute  the  divine  character.  The  distinction  is 
correct,  for  the  fact  of  presence  is  in  itself  a  natural  and  not 


IMMANENCE 


325 


a  moral  fact,  and  universality  of  presence  is  the  divine  mode 
of  a  natural  relation.  But  the  reckoning  of  omnipresence 
as  a  non-moral  attribute  does  not  do  it  justice.  That  of 
which  we  speak  is  not  merely  a  presence — it  is  the  presence 
of  God,  and  the  mention  of  it  carries  with  it  all  the  meaning 
that  the  name  of  God  implies.  Doubtless  it  is  true  that  the 
presence  or  absence  of  a  friend  is  purely  a  physical  fact,  yet 
friendship  is  scarcely  satisfied  with  that  estimation  of  it. 
The  presence  of  the  friend  is  the  presence  of  the  heart  that 
loves  and  is  loved,  and  of  the  character  that  justifies  the 
friendship.  By  the  medium  of  the  natural  attribute,  omni¬ 
presence,  there  is  represented  to  us  the  real  and  universal 
presence  of  all  that  we  mean  by  God — of  all  the  fulness  of 
character  and  wealth  of  relations  and  versatility  of  energy 
of  which  God  is  possessed.  Omnipresence  is  the  natural 
mode  of  being  by  virtue  of  which  all  the  moral  worth  of  God 
is  everywhere  available. 

This  conception  of  omnipresence  comes  to  us  out  of  real 
life.  The  Christian  doctrine  has  always  affirmed  the  omni¬ 
presence  of  God,  and  has  proclaimed  it  primarily  as  a  truth 
of  religion.  Naturally  there  are  speculative  inquiries  about 
so  great  a  fact,  but,  just  as  it  ought,  the  religious  interest 
has  far  exceeded  the  philosophical.  The  presence  of  the 
living  God  is  the  most  vital  of  realities,  and  ought  to  command 
an  interest  that  is  not  curious  but  practical.  A  presence  must 
be  felt:  it  cannot  have  its  due  effect  by  being  reasoned  about. 
The  divine  omnipresence  becomes  effective  upon  men,  and 
becomes  even  a  noticeable  reality,  only  in  that  experience 
which  is  religion.  It  is  in  the  record  of  experience  that  we 
find  it  acknowledged.  Psalm  cxxxix  gives  classical  expression 
to  the  conviction  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  putting  distance 
between  a  soul  and  God:  ‘'Thou  hast  beset  me  behind 
and  before.  .  .  .  Whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence?” 
To  the  psalmist  this  is  a  solemn  thing,  for  it  is  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  a  God  who  knows  his  words  and  understands  his 
thoughts,  and  is  sure  to  search  out  all  his  sins.  But  it  also 
brings  him  unspeakable  joy  and  rest,  since  he  is  sure  that 


326 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


wherever  he  may  go  it  will  be  to  him  a  friendly  and  sustain¬ 
ing  presence. 

I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning, 

And  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea, 

Even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me. 

And  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me.” 

With  equal  awe  and  gladness  he  celebrates  God’s  omnipres¬ 
ence  as  a  fact  inevitable,  and  as  the  invaluable  support  of  his 
religious  confidence. 

“How  precious  also  are  thy  thoughts  unto  me,  O  God! 

How  great  is  the  sum  of  them! 

When  I  awake,  I  am  still  with  thee.” 

This  conviction  of  God’s  universal  and  unfailing  near¬ 
ness  runs  increasingly  through  the  Bible.  There  is  no 
difficulty  in  making  allowance  for  the  anthropomorphic  lo¬ 
calizing  of  God,  or  the  representation  that  in  his  majesty 
he  comes  from  afar  to  reward  or  punish.  Such  represen¬ 
tations  were  so  natural  in  their  time  that  we  could  not  ex¬ 
pect  the  Scriptures  to  be  free  from  them.  In  its  day  such 
language  was  the  language  of  power,  and  we  must  confess 
that  something  of  its  old  power  still  attends  it.  But  in 
the  Bible  as  a  whole  such  views  of  God  form  a  gradually 
retiring  element,  and  the  entering  and  growing  thought  is 
that  of  universal  presence.  Naturally  it  is  so,  for  the  Bible 
is  a  history  of  the  growth  and  deepening  of  religion,  and  the 
deepening  of  religion  and  the  sense  of  God  are  inseparable 
companions. 

The  religious  quality  of  our  doctrine  of  omnipresence, 
however,  does  not  prevent  our  inquiring  about  the  manner 
of  it.  The  metaphysics  of  the  divine  presence  cannot  cease 
to  be  interesting.  But  we  shall  be  disappointed  if  we  expect 
any  clear  answering  of  our  questions.  According  to  our 
observation  a  presence  involves  an  occupying  of  space;  and 
naturally  we  inquire  whether,  or  in  what  sense,  the  present 
God  occupies  space,  as  familiar  objects  seem  to  us  to  do. 


IMMANENCE 


327 


We  may  be  led  to  speak  of  the  essence  of  God,  and  to  imagine 
that  it  must  be  everywhere.  But  what  may  be  meant  by  the 
essence  of  God  we  can  never  tell.  We  say  that  God  is  im¬ 
material:  what  then  can  we  mean  by  his  essence,  regarded 
as  something  that  occupies  space  ?  If  we  begin  with  inquiries 
of  this  kind  we  shall  not  get  beyond  thinking  of  God  some¬ 
what  as  we  think  of  an  atmosphere,  far-spread  and  thinly- 
diffused,  a  conception  devoid  of  spiritual  quality.  This 
is  not  the  best  way  to  approach  the  subject.  We  shall  do 
better  if  we  follow  in  the  direction  in  which  religion  leads  us. 
The  psalmist  is  a  better  guide  here  than  the  scientist  can  be. 
His  tribute  to  the  Omnipresent  is  a  tribute  to  a  living  God, 
whose  knowledge,  will  and  friendly  care  he  commemorates. 
We  predicate  omnipresence  of  the  Possessor  of  the  powers 
of  a  living  Spirit.  Religion  proclaims  not  an  omnipresent 
essence,  but  an  omnipresent  God :  ^‘Lo,  God  is  here!’’  It  is 
the  Father,  Saviour,  Lord,  who  is  everywhere:  “underneath 
are  the  everlasting  arms”  (Dt.  xxxiii.  27)  of  sustaining  person¬ 
ality  and  spiritual  strength.  Faith  celebrates  the  real  presence 
of  the  eternal  righteousness  and  love,  characteristic  of  the 
infinite  Mind  to  whom  they  belong.  The  natural  presence 
glows  with  the  spiritual  perfections,  and  is  best  described  in 
terms  of  them. 

With  the  moral  perfections  of  course  we  include  in  our 
thought  the  inexhaustible  fount  of  action.  The  will  of  God 
is  everywhere.  For  him  to  live  is  to  work:  ‘^My  Father 
worketh  even  until  now”  (Jn.  v.  17).  When  we  affirm  the 
omnipresence  of  God  we  mean  that  God  is  free  from  all 
limitations  of  space  in  his  activities,  and  can  do  everywhere 
all  that  he  can  do  anywhere.  All  that  he  is,  is  everywhere 
available  for  action  at  all  times.  He  never  needs  to  move 
in  order  to  be  at  any  place  in  which  he  wills  to  work.  All 
the  energy  that  goes  forth  from  his  wisdom,  love  and  holiness, 
or  is  summoned  by  his  purpose,  works  everywhere  at  once 
in  equal  perfection.  To  say  this  is  to  affirm  that  he  himself 
works  everywhere  at  once,  and  is  present  everywhere.  The 
acting  God  is  omnipresent.  How  energy  goes  forth  from 


328 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


him  no  one  knows,  but  from  him  it  does  everywhere  go  forth. 
If  we  cannot  say  much  more  than  this  about  the  manner  of 
his  omnipresence  we  need  not  be  troubled,  for  this  conception 
is  at  once  the  clearest  and  the  most  helpful.  A  metaphysical 
conception  of  omnipresence,  if  we  could  form  it,  would  be  spirit¬ 
ually  barren.  We  are  influenced  by  the  idea  of  omnipresence 
when  we  feel  it  as  the  real  presence  of  God’s  character,  heart 
and  moral  energy;  and  it  is  from  confidence  in  this  that  we 
come  to  have  vital  belief  in  such  presence  as  is  sufficient  for 
ends  that  are  not  moral.  Though  we  cannot  mentally 
picture  such  a  presence,  a  personal  sense  of  it  is  possible  to 
every  soul  without  a  mental  picture. 

How  truly  such  a  real  presence  is  implied  in  all  satisfactory 
religion  we  know.  All  our  best  religious  acts  and  hopes  de¬ 
pend  upon  it.  The  doctrine  of  omnipresence  is  simply  a 
form  of  the  doctrine  of  monotheism.  Omnipresence  is 
unipresence.  All  strong  religion  says,  ‘^God  is  here.” 
Although  the  practice  of  praying  to  a  God  far  off  in  heaven 
has  outlived  its  time  and  survived  till  now,  the  happy  incon¬ 
sistency  of  faith  helps  to  correct  the  error.  More  or  less 
clearly  and  powerfully,  men  feel  the  presence  of  God  when 
they  pray.  Jesus  never  spoke  of  omnipresence,  but  he  as¬ 
sumed  that  the  Father  was  always  within  reach.  All  living 
sense  of  God  is  sense  of  a  present  God.  All  faith  in  provi¬ 
dence  implies  faith  in  universal  presence.  A  living  trust  in 
God  implies  that  wherever  one  may  go,  he  is  there,  and 
wherever  he  is  needed  he  is.  If  we  had  to  say,  “The  Lord  is 
in  this  place  and  I  knew  it  not,”  because  we  thought  we  had 
passed  the  limits  of  his  country,  we  should  be  only  on  the 
threshold  of  religion.  If  we  are  to  believe  in  a  future  life 
that  is  worthy  of  the  soul,  we  must  believe  that  wherever  the 
soul  may  find  itself  hereafter,  God  is  there,  with  power  and 
character  adequate  to  its  destinies.  Thus  “God  with  us” 
is  the  life  of  our  religion,  and  in  him  we  rest.  Wherever  a 
man  may  be,  the  God  of  holiness  and  love,  the  Creator  and 
Judge  of  men,  the  Father  of  Jesus,  is  present,  with  all  his 
character  and  power.  In  the  spirit  of  the  psalmist,  who 


IMMANENCE 


329 


gave  us  our  classic  of  orunipresence  (Ps.  cxxxix),  we  may 
cultivate  that  ‘‘practice  of  the  presence  of  God”  by  which 
life  is  advanced  to  its  highest  dignity  and  worth. 

When  we  pass  from  Omnipresence  to  Immanence,  it  is 
important  that  we  learn  how  far  and  in  what  sense  we  are 
passing  into  a  new  region.  Immanence  is  presence,  and  omni¬ 
presence,  but  the  entrance  of  the  newer  name  seems  to  indi¬ 
cate  that  modern  thought  desired  to  express  something  more 
concerning  God  than  the  doctrine  of  omnipresence  has  been 
understood  to  affirm.  The  idea  of  immanence  is  constantly 
represented  to  be  a  new  idea  in  theology,  and  one  that  intro¬ 
duces  a  new  element  to  our  thought  of  God.  Precisely  what 
that  additional  something  is,  is  a  question  that  is  always 
arising.  If  we  speak  of  immanence,  we  are  sure  to  be  asked, 
“Exactly  what  do  you  mean  by  it?”  and  a  clear  answer  is 
desired.  It  is  true  that  vagueness  here  is  no  crime,  for  this 
is  no  region  for  formulas;  and  yet  if  we  speak  of  immanence 
at  all  we  wish  to  know  what  under  this  name  is  added  to  our 
doctrine  of  God.  Is  anything  really  added  ?  In  studying , 
immanence,  are  we  on  old  ground,  or  on  new  ?  I 

The  question  is  answered  by  clearing  it  of  its  ambiguity. 
If  by  omnipresence  we  mean  simply  what  is  commonly 
included  under  the  definition  of  that  word,  immanence 
includes  something  that  the  older  term  does  not  cover.  But 
if  omnipresence  be  allowed  all  the  fulness  of  meaning  that 
belongs  to  it  when  it  is  the  omnipresence  of  God,  then  all  that 
immanence  means  is  included  in  it.  To  omnipresence  itself, 
a  fact  of  the  divine  being,  immanence,  which  is  also  a  fact 
of  the  divine  being,  adds  nothing.  An  omnipresent  God  is 
immanent.  But  to  the  human  doctrine  of  omnipresence, 
which  is  only  an  interpretation  of  the  fact,  the  human  doctrine 
of  immanence  does  contribute  an  addition,  and  one  that  we 
can  define. 

To  the  doctrine  of  omnipresence,  the  doctrine  of  immanence 
adds  the  endeavour  to  expound  the  relation  between  the  omni¬ 
present  God  and  the  universe  with  which  he  is  present.  It 


330 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


not  only  affirms  that  God  is  present,  but  attempts  to  suggest 
something  as  to  what  he  effects  by  virtue  of  his  presence,  and 
how  the  universe  is  affected  by  it.  The  doctrine  of  immanence 
is  nothing  more  than  an  endeavour  to  interpret  the  fact  of 
God’s  universal  presence,  and  tell  what  that  presence  signifies, 
or  accomplishes.  What  does  the  real  presence  of  the  sole 
transcendent  Being,  bearing  all  the  power  and  character  of 
God,  mean  to  the  universe,  material  and  spiritual  ?  In  what 
manner  of  contact  with  it  does  he  stand?  Wherein  is  the 
universe  different  because  he  is  in  it  from  what  it  would  be 
if  he  were  governing  it  from  without  ?  What  is  it  receiving 
or  becoming,  in  consequence  of  its  immediate  contact  with  all 
the  fulness  of  God  ?  To  these  far-reaching  questions  the 
doctrine  of  immanence  would  fain  propose  some  helpful 
answers.  Whatever  the  answers  may  be,  it  is  plain  that  the 
effort  is  only  an  endeavour  to  interpret  God’s  presence  with 
all  his  creatures,  and  show  what  it  means  to  them.  The 
doctrine  of  omnipresence  affirms  that  God  is  everywhere: 
the  doctrine  of  immanence  affirms  what  it  means  that  God 
is  everywhere.  The  indwelling  of  God  which  is  affirmed  as 
omnipresence  is  expounded  under  the  name  of  immanence, 
but  under  whatever  name  the  presence  is  the  same.  Omni¬ 
presence  is  immanence.  So  the  two  doctrines  differ  in  their 
scope,  but  the  reality  with  which  they  deal  is  one  and  the  same. 

In  view  of  this  distinction  between  the  great  reality  and 
the  two  doctrines  concerning  it,  it  appears  that  the  old  relig¬ 
ious  doctrine  of  omnipresence  is  not  superseded  by  the  newer 
doctrine  of  immanence,  and  that  the  two  doctrines  stand  in  no 
sort  of  contrast  to  each  other.  In  both  we  contemplate  only 
the  one  relation  of  the  living  God  to  his  universe.  In  our 
study  of  immanence  we  simply  read  the  fulness  of  the  sig¬ 
nificance  of  God  into  the  announcement  of  his  universal 
presence.  We  can  never  do  this  perfectly,  and  therefore  our 
doctrine  of  immanence  will  always  be  incomplete.  But  the 
effort  is  a  worthy  one,  and  we  shall  conceive  more  truly  both 
of  God  and  of  the  world  for  making  it. 

It  is  a  fact  so  fundamental  that  it  must  never  be  forgotten 


IMMANENCE 


331 


that  the  presence  of  God  with  his  universe  is  a  presence 
that  involves  or  constitutes  a  relation.  It  is  not  an  identity, 
but  a  presence  of  One  with  another.  That  with  which  God 
abides  stands  in  an  actual  relation  to  him,  in  which  one  party 
is  just  as  real  as  the  other.  The  universe  is  not  a  part  of 
God,  and  God  does  not  hold  the  universe  absorbed  into  him¬ 
self,  or  come  to  be  himself  by  means  of  it.  The  Christian 
doctrine  knows  no  such  thought.  God  is  in  and  with  the 
universe,  but  that  very  statement  means  that  he  and  it  are 
two,  not  one,  however  wondrously  in  union.  God  is  mar¬ 
vellously  united  to  that  which  is  not  himself,  but  he  is  not  the 
universe,  nor  is  the  universe  he. 

The  significance  of  the  universal  presence  must  be  read 
first  of  all  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  it  is  the  presence  of  the 
self-communicating  God.  Forthgoing  and  self-expression 
belong  to  his  eternal  nature.  That  rational  forthgoing  char¬ 
acter  in  God  which  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (Jn.  i.  1-18)  is 
called  the  Logos  is  in  his  very  life :  it  was  with  God  and  was 
God  from  the  beginning,  and  will  be  forever.  This  means  that 
God  is  eternally  self-uttering  and  self-imparting.  He  does  not 
live  unto  himself.  He  does  not  dwell  in  his  universe  statically 
and  self-contained.  Action  is  his  life,  and  his  life  is  every¬ 
where.  This  means  that  the  real  presence  is  a  creative 
presence.  Creation  is  the  fruit  of  the  forthgoing.  Without 
the  Logos  was  not  anything  made  that  hath  been  made. 
Creation  is  not  a  work  wrought  upon  the  world  from  beyond, 
or  bespoken  from  afar,  but  a  work  of  self-uttering  volition 
wrought  from  within.  Whether  creation  has  beginning  or 
end  we  do  not  know,  but  we  do  know  that  in  past,  present 
or  future  it  proceeds  from  the  inward  impulse  of  the  present 
God.  We  remember  also  that  creation  and  sustaining  are 
not  two  works  but  one.  The  impulse  that  creates  sustains 
and  orders  also,  and  the  work  of  God  in  his  universe  is  one 
work  from  first  to  last.  And  this  single  work  of  creating, 
sustaining  and  ordering  is  a  work  of  his  presence,  going  forth 
to  action  in  virtue  of  his  quality  as  Logos.  What  comes  to 
the  universe,  because  he  is  present,  is  that  the  universe  exists. 


332 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  is  maintained  in  being,  ordered  in  its  movement,  and 
directed  to  its  end.  This  is  that  effect  of  God’s  omnipresence 
which  the  doctrine  of  immanence  endeavours  to  set  forth. 
Because  the  self-uttering  God  is  present  there  is  a  universe 
brought  forth  and  kept  in  significant  existence. 

When  God  is  spoken  of  as  creating,  he  is  popularly  thought 
of  as  creating  the  material  universe ;  and  when  he  is  said  to  be 
immanent,  it  is  in  the  material  universe  that  his  immanence 
is  first  located.  This  is  unfortunate,  but  not  surprising. 
The  venerable  narrative  of  the  creation  sums  all  up  in  the 
creation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  It  is  in  the  school  of 
science  that  we  have  lately  learned  most  about  the  universe, 
and  it  is  no  wonder  that  it  is  regarded  too  exclusively  in  its 
physical  aspects.  It  is  easy  to  think  of  the  universe  as 
virtually  identical  with  that  which  is  seen  or  suggested  in  the 
starry  heavens  on  a  cloudless  night:  the  worlds  compose  it, 
and  the  telescope  and  the  microscope  together,  with  perfect 
power,  might  reveal  it  to  us.  We  ourselves  as  spiritual  beings, 
and  the  dwellers  in  Mars,  if  such  there  are,  are  often  regarded 
as  denizens  of  the  universe  but  scarcely  as  a  part  of  it.  It  is 
in  this  universe  of  matter  that  God  is  often  represented  as 
immanent,  putting  forth  energy,  holding  the  worlds  together 
by  gravitation,  maintaining  the  universal  order.  So  natu¬ 
rally  has  this  idea  of  immanence  come  in  that  some  Christians 
have  incautiously  assented  to  it,  and  accepted  or  declined  the 
doctrine  with  this  understanding  of  what  it  means. 

It  is  right  to  recognize  the  presence  of  God  in  the  material 
universe,  and  to  call  him  immanent  there.  It  is  true  that 
he  has  not  made  his  presence  discernible  by  the  sight  of  the 
eye  or  the  hearing  of  the  ear,  and  that  we  do  not  know  how 
his  work  is  done.  But  it  is  right  to  say  that  the  immeasurable 
energy  that  goes  forth  in  the  material  universe  proceeds  from 
him,  and  that  all  signs  of  mind,  intelligence,  rational  under¬ 
standing  in  the  material  universe  are  signs  of  God  and  ex¬ 
pressions  of  his  being.  Signs  of  power  and  signs  of  mind  are 
expressive,  too,  not  only  of  God,  but  of  the  present  God.  It 


IMMANENCE 


333 


is  true  that  the  forces  of  the  material  universe  are  resident 
forces,  as  the  scientists  say,  and  that  the  intelligence  is  resident 
intelligence.  The  forces  and  intelligence  are  resident  because 
God  is  resident.  All  suggestions  of  a  godless  world,  or  a 
world  so  orderly  as  to  need  no  God,  are  due  to  observation  of 
results  of  divine  indwelling,  without  recognition  of  their 
source.  If  it  has  ever  seemed  that  the  order  of  the  world  was 
automatic,  that  was  because  the  invisible  God  has  done  so 
well  the  work  of  his  indwelling.  The  boundless  energy  and 
intelligence  that  the  universe  displays  simply  fill  out  the 
second  term  of  Paul’s  great  ascription,  “From  him,  and 
through  him,  and  unto  him,  are  all  things”  (Rom.  xi.  36). 
That  which  came  from  him  and  turns  to  him  is  sustained  and 
ordered  also  by  his  presence. 

Such  divine  indwelling  is  the  foundation  of  what  we  are 
wont  to  call  the  order,  or  the  uniformity,  of  nature.  The 
order  of  nature  is  often  spoken  of  almost  as  if  it  were  an  inde¬ 
pendent  entity,  of  which  God  himself  must  take  account  in 
his  governance  of  the  world,  to  observe  it  or  to  violate  it. 
But  apart  from  God  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  order  of 
nature,  or  as  nature  itself.  His  influence  upon  the  world  is 
not  an  inreaching,  to  affect  nature:  it  is  rather  an  inspira¬ 
tion,  constituting  nature.  The  order  of  the  world  is  his  own 
order,  and  he  himself,  working  within,  maintains  it.  As  for 
our  belief  in  the  uniformity  of  nature,  it  is  founded  in  experi¬ 
ence,  not  in  theory:  it  is  a  lesson  learned  from  what  God  has 
done.  The  order  of  nature  is  commended  to  us  by  our  ob¬ 
servation,  as  the  expression  of  a  rational  mind. 

The  God  whose  method  is  nature  is  not  incapable  of  de¬ 
parting  from  his  method.  Pie  is  a  free  Spirit,  and  the  very 
fact  that  he  has  a  method  is  to  us  an  evidence  that  he  is  not  in 
bondage  to  it.  In  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  he  may  work 
miracles,  if  he  will.  But  his  indwelling  enables  us  to  put  a 
new  estimate  upon  miracles  if  they  occur.  If  he  should  depart 
from  his  order  and  work  miracles,  they  would  not  be  so  unlike 
his  other  works  as  we  have  thought.  It  is  not  true  that  he 
enters  the  world  through  the  door  of  the  miraculous,  for  he  is 


334 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


in  the  world  already,  and  a  miracle  would  be  nothing  more 
than  a  variant  act  of  his  ever-present  will.  Discerning  the 
real  presence,  we  can  never  again  imagine  that  nothing  but 
a  miracle  is  a  direct  work  of  his.  Not  chiefly  in  flashes  of 
God,  but  in  a  steady  world,  is  the  divine  reality  revealed.  The 
present  God  warrants  the  settled  confidence.  Accordingly, 
our  trust  in  God  becomes  a  trust  in  a  beneficent  steadiness 
in  the  operation  of  the  world.  The  firm  order  in  which  we 
have  come  to  rest  has  beneath  it  the  solidity  of  God,  and  we 
trust  in  the  faithfulness  of  nature  because  it  is  a  form  of  his 
own  faithfulness.  He  may  depart  from  his  order,  but  he  will 
not  vary  it  so  much  as  to  break  up  our  confidence  in  the  order 
that  serves  as  the  security  of  our  life. 

But  the  vital  part  of  the  doctrine  of  immanence  is  not 
found  in  any  doctrine  of  the  material  universe.  Those  who 
look  no  farther  may  find  an  immanence  that  serves  as  a 
theistic  key  to  universal  physics,  and  a  confirmation  of  teleol¬ 
ogy,  but  the  full  glory  of  the  real  presence  is  not  here  to  be 
perceived.  The  material  universe  is  not  the  whole,  or  the 
chief  part,  of  that  in  which  God  dwells.  The  universe  in 
which  he  dwells  includes  all  living  spirits;  for  the  mind  that 
thinks  of  the  sun  is  a  part  of  the  universe  as  truly  as  the  sun. 
The  God  who  is  immanent  in  the  universe  is  immanent  in  the 
spiritual  order  of  which  our  spirits  and  their  life  form  a  part. 
“In  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being’’  (Actsxvii.  28) 
— we,  whose  being  does  not  belong  altogether  to  this  world 
which  we  behold.  Not  until  we  have  said  this  have  we 
opened  the  heart  of  our  doctrine.  More  important  is  the  real 
presence  with  the  soul  than  the  real  presence  with  the  stars. 
Here  lie  the  deepest  questions  about  the  divine  indwelling, 
and  here  shine  its  chief  glories. 

There  is  a  name  that  we  can  give  to  the  immanent  self¬ 
communicating  God,  when  we  think  of  him  in  his  relation  to 
spiritual  beings.  Toward  them  he  must  be  the  creative  God, 
the  Father  of  spirits.  He  is,  they  become.  Here  creation 
is  more  characteristic  of  him  than  it  can  be  elsewhere,  for  it 
is  reproduction  of  his  own  likeness.  This  spiritual  creative- 


IMMANENCE 


335 


ness  of  God  was  in  action  in  the  world  long  before  men  were 
men,  for  it  was  due  to  his  nature  that  life,  once  initiated  in  the 
world  by  him,  advanced  and  expanded  into  life  that  was 
human.  Because  God  self-communicating  was  in  the  world, 
life  was  trained  up  to  humanity.  Thus  by  process,  but  as 
really  as  if  by  a  stroke,  God  creates  his  like  in  the  human  race. 
The  eternal  Mind  wills  it,  and  in  due  time  there  are  minds. 
The  eternal  Goodness  wills  it,  and  beings  to  whom  goodness 
is  possible  appear.  The  perfect  Person  wills  it,  and  man 
stands  forth  a  person.  Thus  living  spirits  in  likeness  to  God 
rise  in  answer  to  his  energizing  action,  and  live  thenceforth, 
sustained  by  the  present  power  that  created  them. 

With  the  spirits  into  whom  the  living  God  has  thus  breathed 
the  breath  of  life,  their  creative  Father  sustains  a  most  inti¬ 
mate  relation.  Everywhere  and  forever,  he  is  as  near  to  them 
as  they  are  to  themselves,  and  yet  he  and  they  are  not  the 
same.  Here  most  evidently  does  immanence  exclude  the 
idea  of  identity,  for  it  is  a  real  indwelling  of  Spirit  with 
spirit,  and  one  that  implies  the  real  existence  of  both  the  spirits. 
There  is  no  shadow  of  pantheism  in  any  true  doctrine  of 
divine  immanence.  On  the  contrary,  that  which  the  self¬ 
communicating  God  has  brought  into  existence  is  an  in¬ 
numerable  multitude  of  persons,  whom  he  sustains  in  life 
and  embraces  in  his  presence.  In  their  personality  they  bear 
his  likeness:  his  likeness  is  in  little,  but  it  is  real.  The 
personality  in  which  his  likeness  resides  he  in  his  dealings 
with  them  respects.  He  is  associated  with  them  in  an  inde¬ 
scribable  intimacy  of  presence,  the  mystery  of  which  they  can 
never  solve,  but  he  does  not  absorb  them  into  himself,  or  by 
any  means  supersede  the  distinctness  of  their  being.  Rather 
is  his  personality  the  pledge  of  theirs.  Because  he  lives  they 
live  also,  and  shall  live  and  be  themselves.  In  the  relation 
that  is  denoted  by  the  real  presence  individuality  is  perfectly 
itself,  and  the  individual  man,  unchanged,  is  simply  em¬ 
braced  in  the  all-encompassing  reality  of  the  present  God. 
Man  is  a  genuine  moral  being,  whose  dignity  and  responsibil- 


336 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


ity  are  never  neutralized  by  any  absorption  into  God  or  an¬ 
nulling  of  his  personality.  Life  in  God  retains  forever  all 
the  ethical  significance  that  God  himself  has  given  it. 

We  are  always  wishing  that  we  could  describe  the  relation 
between  the  divine  will  and  the  human,  in  the  unseen  region 
where  the  two  most  closely  meet.  But  here  we  shall  always 
be  compelled  to  acknowledge  mystery.  That  God  should 
have  set  off  the  human  will  in  a  real  separateness  is  itself  a 
most  wonderful  thing.  How  far  the  divine  is  from  abolishing 
the  human  that  has  been  thus  made  separate  we  see  in  the 
amazing  fact  that  with  all  his  nearness  God  does  not  prevent 
man  from  acting  in  opposition  to  his  will.  That  a  spirit 
gifted  with  godlike  power  of  will  and  borne  upon  the  very 
bosom  of  divine  being  should  act  against  the  God  whose 
presence  is  his  life  is  surely  the  most  tragic  of  things.  But 
human  separateness  appears  in  this  awful  gift  of  power. 
Our  separateness  is  proved  by  the  fact  of  our  sinning.  This 
fact  is  enough  to  show  that  the  touch  of  the  divine  presence 
is  not  of  a  compelling  kind.  The  whole  of  the  divine  char¬ 
acter  is  here,  and  yet  man  is  allowed  to  be  himself.  It  is 
the  character  that  makes  sin  most  dreadful,  and  at  the  same 
time  it  is  the  character  that  keeps  the  hope  of  holiness  at 
hand.  Every  sinful  soul  is  in  perpetual  contact  with  holy 
divine  judgment,  and  also  with  holy  redemptive  love. 

It  is  in  the  life  of  spirits  akin  to  himself  that  God’s  self¬ 
communicating  nature  appears  in  greatest  significance.  We 
use  the  truest  of  images  when  we  say  that  in  his  spiritual  world 
God  is  light  (1  Jn.  i.  5).  It  is  the  nature  of  light  to  shine, 
and  it  is  the  nature  of  God  to  impart  himself.  In  his  spiritual 
indwelling  God  is  the  true  light  that  lighteth  every  man. 
Such  is  his  relation  to  souls  that  he  is  always  shining  into 
their  life,  or  giving  them  influence  for  illumination  and  * 
guidance.  It  is  not  that  there  exists  a  true  light  provided 
and  sent  forth,  intervening  between  God  and  men,  repre¬ 
senting  him  and  blessing  them.  God  himself,  present  and 
self-imparting,  is  the  true  light  that  lightens  all  men  (Jn.  i. 
9).  Men  may  darken  this  light  for  themselves,  so  far  as 


IMMANENCE 


337 


their  own  highest  benefit  is  concerned,  but  since  the  light 
is  God  himself  they  cannot  extinguish  it  or  banish  it  from 
their  sphere.  All  men  have  to  do  with  the  enlightening 
God,  and  a  dark  soul  is  a  soul  dark  in  the  midst  of  light. 

If  we  ask  what  this  means,  and  what  action  corresponds  to 
this  description  of  God  as  the  light  of  men,  we  shall  find  the 
answer  in  the  fact  that  God  has  imparted  to  man  an  intellect¬ 
ual  nature,  a  moral  nature,  and  a  religious  nature.  From 
his  own  being  he  has  given  forth  to  men  the  qualities  that 
these  names  represent.  The  answer  is  completed  in  this 
other  fact,  that  he  who  has  given  man  such  a  nature  acts 
toward  him  as  a  faithful  Creator  and  a  ministering  Father, 
mindful  of  that  which  he  has  made.  He  does  not  forsake 
the  work  of  his  own  hands.  The  present  God  is  always  in 
the  attitude  of  one  who  remembers  his  offspring  and  nourishes 
the  nature  that  he  has  given. 

In  consequence  of  this  all-embracing  faithfulness,  there  is 
a  genuine  inspiration  of  God  in  the  growing  life  and  thought 
of  mankind.  When  men  are  receptive  of  his  best  gifts,  he 
dwells  with  them  in  rich  self-impartation :  “I  dwell  in  the 
high  and  holy  place,  with  him  also  that  is  of  a  humble  and 
contrite  spirit”  (Isa.  Ivii.  15).  But  even  when  divine  indwell¬ 
ing  cannot  be  thus  fruitful,  man  is  never  alone,  alone  though 
he  may  seem  to  be.  In  the  aspirations  of  religion  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  the  unaided  heart  of  man,  and  in  the  endeavour 
of  duty  there  is  no  such  thing  as  the  unaided  human  conscience. 
God  is  with  the  thinking  mind,  the  trusting  heart  and  the 
struggling  will.  Through  this  insistent  helpful  presence  it 
comes  to  pass  that  there  is  a  serious  and  solemn  law  in  human 
life.  The  present  God  is  the  eternal  right,  and  his  indwelling 
keeps  the  law  of  right  in  human  life  as  a  perfectly  inevitable 
thing,  as  urgent  as  it  is  beneficent.  The  law  of  the  good  in  life 
is  from  God,  and  is  the  law  of  the  present  God.  When  men 
are  good,  they  are  responding  to  him  whether  they  know  it  or 
not.  When  they  are  evil,  still  it  is  God  within  who  ministers 
to  them  that  inward  good  by  comparison  with  which  they  are 
so  evil  and  condemned.  This  all-penetrating  moral  relation 


338 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


to  God  belongs  not  to  some  special  men  privileged  to  be  aware 
of  it,  but  to  men  as  spirits  and  offspring  of  God,  and  to  all 
souls,  in  whatever  realm  of  existence  they  may  be.  This  is 
the  method  of  the  living  God  toward  all  the  living. 

Not  that  God  is  recognized  in  all  this  work  of  his,  or  that 
men  usually  even  suspect  the  real  presence  in  its  fulness  of 
meaning.  It  is  far  otherwise,  even  apart  from  the  fact  of 
moral  indifference  in  men.  In  vast  activities  God  is  hidden 
behind  the  processes.  There  is  much  that  man  considers 
all  his  own,  or  else  anonymous  and  devoid  of  character,  but 
God  is  in  it  all.  The  universe,  observed,  has  provided  abun¬ 
dant  instruction  for  the  intellect  and  material  for  knowledge. 
How  inexhaustible  is  that  harvest  we  well  know.  Nothing 
could  appear  more  anonymous  than  these  gifts  of  knowledge : 
did  they  not  lie  there  in  the  field,  waiting  to  be  gathered  up  ? 
But  the  presence  and  value  of  these  lessons,  and  their  avail¬ 
ableness  to  men,  were  not  accidental.  The  unseen  teacher 
who  taught  men  knowledge  was  God  self-uttering,  manifested 
in  his  world.  Moreover,  life  has  always  been  a  school  of 
ethics,  in  which  sound  principles  of  living  have  been  learned; 
but  there  being  no  visible  teacher,  this  has  often  been  taken 
to  be  a  bare  fact  of  history  and  human  nature,  sufficiently 
dealt  with  in  being  recorded.  But  the  teacher  of  morals  is 
God  indwelling.  Through  that  social  order  which  comes 
of  his  creative  wisdom,  and  through  experience  in  his  world, 
he  himself  has  been  slowly  bearing  in  upon  men  moral  lessons 
that  correspond  to  his  character.  That  men  have  learned  the 
lessons  only  in  part,  and  have  often  misused  them,  is  nothing 
against  the  teaching,  which  is  the  fundamental  ethical  fact 
of  history.  In  like  manner  religion,  one  of  the  most  ancient 
and  honourable  possessions  of  the  race,  has  often  been  re¬ 
garded  as  an  ungiven  gift,  a  possession  wholly  unaccounted 
for,  except  that  it  belonged  to  human  nature  and  was  found  in 
life.  A  superficial  search  could  indeed  yield  nothing  more 
than  this.  But  in  truth  the  religious  possibility  was  the 
gift  of  the  Creator  who  made  man  for  himself,  and  the  re¬ 
ligious  development  was  the  response  of  the  living  man  to  the 


IMMANENCE 


339 


living  God.  These  are  instances  of  the  effect  of  immanence, 
God  uttering  himself  to  man,  and  sending  his  wholesome 
influence  into  the  human  intelligence  and  experience. 

In  the  light  of  God’s  immanence  we  obtain  a  double  view 
of  the  universe.  We  contemplate  it  as  it  is  by  itself  to  our 
senses  and  our  thoughts,  and  at  the  same  time  we  behold  it 
with  the  present  God  shining  through  it.  On  the  one  hand 
we  may  examine  the  world  and  life  in  scientific  fashion,  and 
learn  to  read  and  classify  the  facts  that  we  observe;  and  on 
the  other  we  may  contemplate  the  whole  universe  and  all  its 
parts  as  filled,  animated,  maintained,  inspired,  by  the  in¬ 
working  of  the  present  God.  These  views  are  not  successive 
but  simultaneous,  and  they  do  not  relate  at  the  same  time  to 
different  parts  of  the  universe.  We  do  not  find  nature  in 
some  things  and  God  in  others:  that  division  of  things  be¬ 
longs  to  the  past.  It  was  tenable  when  God  was  judged  to 
be  separate  from  his  works,  but  now  we  know  that  he  is  “not 
so  far  away  as  even  to  be  near.  ”  In  all  parts  of  his  universe, 
in  ways  differing  according  to  the  quality  of  that  which  he  has 
created,  God  works  always  in,  with  and  through  that  which  is 
not  himself.  So  we  take  scientific  cognizance  of  “earth  and 
every  common  bush,”  and  at  the  same  time  are  aware  that 

“Earth’s  crammed  with  heaven, 

And  every  common  bush  alive  with  God.” 

This  is  the  meaning  of  immanence. 

This  truth  of  the  transcendent  God  immanent  in  his 
universe  helps  us  to  see  what  is  really  meant  by  the  distinc¬ 
tion,  familiar  but  not  easily  defined,  between  the  natural  and 
the  supernatural. 

The  distinction  is  insisted  upon  in  ordinary  Christian  dis¬ 
course  as  positively  as  if  it  were  perfectly  understood,  and 
few  who  speak  easily  of  the  supernatural  have  any  idea  how 
difficult  of  definition  it  is.  But  those  who  have  seriously 
tried  to  define  it  know.  Before  we  can  clearly  tell  what  is 
supernatural  we  must  know  how  much  is  included  in  nature; 


340 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


for  until  we  have  drawn  the  upper  limit  of  the  natural  we 
cannot  tell  on  what  principle  we  are  to  say  of  anything  that 
it  is  above  that  limit,  or  supernatural.  But  here  lies  the  diffi¬ 
culty.  Nature  is  a  very  ambiguous  and  uncertain  word,  and 
it  inevitably  imparts  its  uncertainty  to  its  companion-word. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  line  between  natural  and  supernatural 
has  been  drawn,  or  attempted,  at  many  different  points. 
Sometimes  it  is  drawn  between  that  which  is  caused  in  the 
ordinary  manner  and  that  which  is  not.  Popularly,  the  super¬ 
natural  is  taken  to  mean  scarcely  more  than  the  extraordinary 
or  the  unknown.  Sometimes  the  line  is  drawn  between  the 
rational  and  personal  and  the  irrational  and  impersonal, 
ranking  the  spirit  of  man  with  God  as  supernatural;  and 
sometimes  the  supernatural  is  conceived  as  an  order  existing 
beyond  this  world,  but  occasionally  breaking  in  upon  the  order 
that  we  know  here.  The  result  of  all  the  defining  is  that  no 
definition  has  proved  satisfactory  enough  to  be  rewarded  by 
general  acceptance,  and  the  old  obscurity  continues.  The 
distinction  is  felt  to  be  both  real  and  important,  but  just  how 
is  it  to  be  made  ? 

The  trouble  is  that  the  dividing  line  has  been  drawn  too 
low.  It  has  been  assumed  that  the  universe,  the  creation  of 
God,  could  be  divided  into  two  parts,  of  which  one  could 
intelligibly  be  called  natural  and  the  other  supernatural. 
There  being  such  a  thing  as  nature,  and  God  himself  being 
above  it,  it  has  been  taken  for  granted  that  some  part  of  his 
creation  shared  in  his  superiority.  Just  how  much  of  his 
creation  was  to  be  enthroned  above  nature  with  God  it  has 
been  hard  to  show,  and  we  cannot  wonder.  It  is  impossible 
to  define  the  natural  by  division  of  the  world.  There  is  no 
place  at  which  the  created  universe  can  be  thus  bisected.  In 
no  tolerable  sense  is  it  true  that  some  part  of  God^s  creation 
possesses  supernaturalness  together  with  God.  There  is 
no  place  to  draw  such  a  line  through  the  sum-total  of  existence, 
except  between  what  we  have  called  the  two  units,  the  uni¬ 
verse  and  God.  God  is  alone  in  his  superiority  to  all  besides, 
and  all  that  is  below  him  forms  a  single  class.  What  is  really 


IMMANENCE 


341 


meant  by  the  supernatural  is  God  himself,  and  by  the  natural 
that  which  he  does  or  produces.  The  natural  is  the  universe 
and  what  it  contains,  in  its  manifold  aspects  of  dependent 
existence.  The  supernatural  is  God  who  alone  is  greater. 

If  God  in  his  transcendence  were  beyond  the  universe,  as 
he  was  once  thought  to  be,  the  supernatural,  thus  defined, 
would  be  manifest  to  men  in  the  form  of  exceptional  occur¬ 
rences,  or  incursions  into  the  accustomed  order.  But  he  is 
not.  We  can  conceive  of  no  union  more  intimate  than  that 
in  which  the  two  units  of  existence  stand.  God  lives  in  the 
universe  and  the  universe  lives  in  God.  The  common  order 
is  animated  by  the  living  will.  That  is  to  say,  the  natural 
and  the  supernatural  exist  together,  not  only  in  the  same  world 
but  in  the  same  events  and  objects.  The  natural  implies 
and  reveals  the  supernatural,  and  is  absolutely  dependent 
upon  it.  The  sole  supernatural  is  that  creative,  quickening, 
inspiring  life  which  is  God  himself,  and  the  natural  includes 
anything  and  everything  in  which  the  living  will  is  expressed. 
The  act  or  product  is  in  nature,  but  God  is  the  supernatural 
agent  who  is  essential  to  its  being.  So  the  event  or  work 
which  lies  within  the  order  of  the  world  is  at  the  same  time  a 
self-expression  of  him  who  is  above  all.  A  leaf,  we  say, 
is  a  product  of  nature,  and  an  illustration  of  nature’s  method. 
So  it  is,  but  it  is  just  as  truly  a  product  of  supernature  and  an 
expression  of  God.  The  tree  that  bears  it  is  rooted  in  the 
ground,  and  is  rooted  in  God.  In  the  natural  leaf,  which  is 
one  of  the  vehicles  of  the  infinite  energizing  will,  the  super¬ 
natural  shines  forth.  What  is  true  of  a  leaf  is  true  in  like 
manner  of  a  bird  in  the  air,  a  child  in  the  cradle,  and  a  saint 
in  heaven.  Nature  and  supernature  appear  in  them  all. 
That  which  lies  back  of  the  ever-present  mystery  of  nature 
is  the  only  God,  the  sole  fount  of  power,  the  true  and  only 
supernatural.  In  his  transcendence  he  is  above  nature,  and 
by  his  immanence  makes  nature  what  it  is. 

Thus  it  comes  to  pass  that  we  have  to  go  no  farther  from 
home  to  find  the  supernatural  than  to  meet  the  natural.  Nor 
have  we  to  wait  for  some  startling  moment  when  the  super- 


342 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


natural  shall  break  through  the  daily  order  of  our  life  and 
appear  to  us.  It  is  here.  Nature  does  not  exclude  it,  but 
expresses  it.  One  is  of  God,  and  the  other  is  God.  The 
variety  of  the  ways  in  which  God  is  both  hidden  and  revealed 
in  the  order  of  the  world  must  not  blind  us  to  his  real  presence, 
for  it  is  true  that  the  world  in  which  we  live  is  both  natural 
and  supernatural  at  once.  But  whether  the  ancient  terms, 
nature  and  the  supernatural,  are  best  adapted  to  the  expression 
of  this  truth,  or  whether  we  need  them,  we  are  quite  free  to 
doubt.  Probably  at  present  the  words  do  more  toward  per¬ 
petuating  confusion  than  toward  strengthening  the  hold  of 
spiritual  truth.  But  the  distinction  between  God  and  the 
world  is  everlasting,  and  this  is  the  distinction  which  the 
familiar  terms  have  endeavoured  to  set  forth. 

A  truth  so  central  as  the  immanence  of  the  transcendent 
God  cannot  fail  to  dictate  throughout  the  entire  field  of  doc¬ 
trine.  By  its  own  nature  it  presses  in  to  the  definitions  that 
belong  alike  to  theology  and  to  the  common  thoughts  of  men. 
Where  it  is  not  influential  to-day  it  is  certain  to  be  to-morrow. 
In  view  of  it,  creation  was  not  a  work  of  days,  undertaken, 
performed  and  finished,  followed  by  cessation  and  rest. 
Creation  is  the  productive  outflow  of  the  divine  energy,  normal 
to  God,  limitless  in  time,  conditioned  only  by  his  nature  and 
will.  Providence  is  not  a  series  of  interpositions  in  which 
God’s  world  is  touched  and  retouched  by  his  special  power 
in  order  to  better  the  work  of  the  general  method.  Provi¬ 
dence  is  the  perpetual  governance  of  the  indwelling  Lord  and 
Friend,  no  part  of  whose  world  is  ever  without  his  presence 
and  care.  Revelation  is  not  a  special  work  in  a  special 
field,  mediated  by  messengers,  attended  by  attesting  miracles, 
limited  to  a  certain  time,  completed  and  not  to  be  renewed. 
Revelation  equally  includes  the  continuous,  infinitely  varied 
and  endless  manifestation  of  the  transcendent  God  through 
his  indwelling,  and  all  more  special  expressions  of  himself 
that  he  may  make.  Salvation  is  not  an  exceptional  gift  of 
grace  from  afar,  but  the  characteristic  working-out  of  the 


OMNISCIENCE 


343 


eternal  divinity  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  ideal  of  existence. 

11.  OMNISCIENCE 

Coming  to  Omniscience, we  might  say  that  it  is  a  companion- 
fact  to  Omnipresence;  but  it  would  be  truer  to  call  it  a  part 
of  Omnipresence,  and  an  essential  element  in  Immanence. 
In  Omnipresence,  God  with  all  his  power  of  action  is  present 
to  all  and  absent  from  nothing — present  therefore  with  all  his 
power  of  knowing.  The  perfect  mind  cannot  be  present 
without  knowing  that  to  which  he  is  present,  and  cannot  be 
omnipresent  without  knowing  all.  In  that  Psalm  cxxxix,  in 
which  both  attributes  are  celebrated  with  such  reverent 
gladness,  this  practical  identity  of  the  two  is  taken  for  granted. 
In  the  esteem  of  the  Psalmist,  God  knows  all  because  he  is 
everywhere.  If  one  cannot  escape  from  his  knowledge,  it  is 
because  one  cannot  flee  from  his  presence. 

Omnipresence  is  unipresence,  the  presence  of  the  one  and 
only  God;  and  in  like  manner  omniscience  is  uniscience,  a 
single  and  all-comprehensive  knowledge.  It  is  thus  a  form 
of  the  divine  unity,  and  the  doctrine  of  it  is  one  of  the  asser¬ 
tions  of  monotheism.  It  simply  affirms  that  one  knowing 
mind  pervades  and  embraces  all.  When  we  say  that  God 
has  perfect  knowledge  of  the  universe,  we  declare  that  one 
of  the  two  units  of  existence  has  perfect  knowledge  of  the 
other.  And  yet  even  this  is  not  all  that  the  doctrine  of 
omniscience  affirms.  God  has  greater  knowledge  than 
this,  for  besides  knowing  the  universe,  he  knows  himself. 
One  of  the  two  units  of  existence  has  perfect  knowledge  not 
of  the  other  only,  but  of  both.  Literally  and  absolutely,  God 
has  perfect  knowledge  of  all. 

Concerning  the  knowledge  that  the  Christian  doctrine  thus 
attributes  to  God  we  are  able  to  make  some  descriptive  state¬ 
ments  that  will  have  some  value.  Of  course  we  may  simply 
say  that  it  is  what  we  know  as  knowledge — God  really  knows. 


344 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


And  we  may  add  that  it  is  knowledge  of  any  and  every  worthy 
kind,  except  such  as  may  imply  the  limitations  of  finitude. 
By  its  very  title  it  is  complete  knowledge;  but  this  plain  state¬ 
ment  includes  two  meanings.  The  presence  of  one  knowing 
God  in  all  the  universe  implies  the  perception  and  under¬ 
standing  of  each  and  every  part,  and  of  the  whole.  It  is  a 
complete  detailed  knowledge,  and  at  the  same  time  a  complete 
comprehensive  knowledge.  We  may  also  say  that  while  it  is 
a  complete  knowledge  in  both  these  modes,  it  is  also  a  correct 
knowledge.  As  nothing  escapes  it,  so  nothing  is  misknown 
by  it.  All  is  known  in  its  real  nature,  relations,  significance 
and  possibilities.  With  such  a  knowledge  the  universe  is 
thought  through,  and  known  with  perfect  understanding 
through  its  whole  extent.  Every  item  and  element  in  it  is 
understood,  and  the  universe  itself  is  understood  in  its  real 
significance  as  a  unit  of  existence.  The  comprehensive  and 
perfect  knowledge  that  could  be  attributed  to  God  by  men 
when  the  world  seemed  small  is  still  attributed  to  him  by 
the  Christian  doctrine  when  the  universe  appears  practically 
infinite.  And  this  divine  knowledge  has  moral  value  to  us 
as  ground  for  confidence  in  the  sanity  of  existence,  in  the  fact 
that  God  also  perfectly  knows  himself,  and  knows  all  other 
being  in  its  relation  to  himself. 

As  between  the  two  aspects  of  omniscience  that  have  just  been 
mentioned,  it  is  quite  natural  that  the  main  emphasis  should 
often  fall  upon  the  completeness  of  God’s  knowledge  in  detail. 
Very  impressive  is  the  fact  that  nothing  is  hidden  from  him, 
and  nothing  is  too  minute  or  insignificant  for  him  to  discern. 
“Thou  God  seest  me”  (Gen.  xvi.  13)  was  a  word  of  grateful 
acknowledgment  in  the  ancient  story,  and  in  the  confession, 
“There  is  not  a  word  in  my  tongue,  but  lo,  O  Lord,  thou 
knowest  it  altogether”  (Ps.  cxxxix.  4),  the  psalmist  noted  how 
great  a  meaning  omniscience  brings  into  common  life.  From 
the  human  side,  whether  in  the  light  of  guilty  conscience  or 
of  filial  trust,  it  is  natural  to  put  emphasis  on  the  fact  that 
Gt)d  knows  everything.  So  this  is  the  first  and  abiding 
popular  form  of  the  doctrine.  Nevertheless,  the  other  aspect 


OMNISCIENCE 


345 


of  omniscience,  that  God  knows  all,  or  knows  the  whole,  is 
quite  as  important,  both  for  thought  and  for  faith.  Experi¬ 
ence  teaches  us  that  details  can  be  rightly  understood  only 
in  their  place  in  the  whole  of  which  they  form  a  part.  It 
follows  that  all  human  knowledge  is  imperfect.  Human 
beings  do  not  understand  anything  completely,  not  even  the 
least  thing  or  the  most  familiar,  because  they  do  not  perfectly 
understand  the  whole  to  which  each  thing  belongs.  God  him¬ 
self  would  be  like  us  in  this  imperfection,  if  his  knowledge 
were  only  detailed  knowledge  of  the  items  of  existence.  But 
in  reality  his  omniscience  takes  in  the  entire  mass  of  partic¬ 
ulars,  and  holds  them  all  in  their  true  place  in  the  universal 
total,  which  as  a  total  he  perfectly  understands.  Thus  while 
the  Christian  doctrine  bears  testimony  that  God  knows  every¬ 
thing,  it  best  awakens  confidence  by  its  assurance  that  God 
knows  all.  Faith  takes  hold  upon  the  completeness  of  his 
perception  and  understanding,  and  rests  upon  that  as  an 
immovable  foundation. 

Sometimes  we  suspect  that  it  is  vain  for  us  to  think  of 
omniscience,  and  presumptuous  to  speak  as  if  we  had  any 
clear  idea  of  it.  Omniscience  must  be  unlike  all  knowledge 
that  is  possible  to  us,  and  our  experience  gives  us  little  aid  in 
comprehending  it.  The  difference  in  range  and  extent 
between  our  knowledge  and  that  of  an  omniscient  mind  is  of 
course  unimaginably  great.  All  our  knowledge  seems  almost 
blank  ignorance  and  folly  in  comparison.  Yet  this  is  not  the 
only  difference.  Our  knowledge  is  acquired,  gained  grad¬ 
ually,  and  always  capable  of  improvement  both  in  quantity 
and  in  quality;  but  the  knowledge  of  the  omniscient  mind  is 
not  acquired  or  improvable.  This  impassable  difference  in 
method  seems  to  put  omniscience  forever  out  of  the  reach  of 
our  understanding,  and  we  may  sometimes  wonder  whether 
our  statements  about  so  great  a  matter  are  anything  more 
than  words.  But  our  suspicion  is  needless.  Omniscience 
is  of  course  beyond  us,  for  it  is  the  knowledge  of  the  perfect 
mind.  But  it  is  the  knowledge  of  a  mind,  and  even  we  in  our 


346 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


remoteness  from  perfection  are  not  without  some  real  and 
true  suggestions  of  what  it  is.  It  is  not  true  that  between  our 
minds  and  an  omniscient  mind  there  is  no  community. 
Methods  of  knowing  differ  immeasurably,  but  at  the  heart 
of  it  the  fact  of  knowing  is  the  same  to  all  intelligences. 
Degrees  of  knowing  differ  immeasurably,  too,  but  without 
altering  the  identity  of  the  thing  itself.  God,  as  the  only 
independent  and  perfect  Being,  knows  perfectly :  in  him  is  the 
ideal  and  perfection  of  knowledge,  both  in  manner  and  in 
result.  We  bear  his  likeness,  but  his  likeness  diminished 
and  within  the  bounds  of  finitude.  Our  littleness  and  lim¬ 
itations  do  not  forbid  us  to  believe  in  his  greatness,  or  prevent 
us  from  forming  some  idea  of  what  it  is. 

We  shall  conceive  more  truly  of  omniscience  if  we  remember 
that  it  is  a  double  knowledge:  it  includes  knowledge  of  two 
kinds,  one  of  which  is  beyond  our  experience,  while  the  other 
is  not.  Omniscience  means  simultaneous  knowledge  of  all 
things,  past,  present,  future  and  everywhere;  and  it  none  the 
less  means  awareness  of  succession  and  knowledge  of  events 
as  they  occur.  With  the  latter  way  of  knowing  we  are  famil¬ 
iar,  for  our  finitude  shuts  us  up  to  it ;  but  with  the  former  we 
are  not,  for  our  finitude  shuts  us  out  from  it.  In  the  simul¬ 
taneity  of  universal  knowledge  God  stands  alone,  but  we 
share  in  his  power  of  knowing  in  succession.  Knowledge 
in  succession  has  often  been  thought  to  be  no  part  of  omni¬ 
science,  and  no  possession  of  God.  It  has  been  said  that  all 
his  knowledge  was  timeless,  and  that  the  “eternal  now’’  was 
so  real  to  him  as  to  allow  him  no  power  of  knowing  succession. 
But  this  cannot  be  true,  for  succession  is  essential  to  the 
significance  of  events  in  time,  and  if  God  had  no  knowledge 
of  it  he  could  not  understand  events,  or  the  history  that  is 
composed  of  them,  or  the  life  of  his  children.  He  has  both 
kinds  of  knowledge:  he  eternally  knows  all  things  at  once, 
and  is  also  aware  of  them  as  they  become  realized  in  time  and 
space;  and  in  the  perfect  mind  there  is  no  inconsistency 
between  these  two  modes.  Our  finite  nature  limits  us  to 
the  narrower  way  of  knowing,  but  we  can  well  see  that  the 


OMNISCIENCE 


347 


perfect  mind  is  not  so  limited,  nor  is  it  shut  out  from  the 
successional  manner.  Omniscience  includes  at  once  the 
simultaneous  and  universal  knowledge  that  corresponds  to 
the  timelessness  of  the  eternal  God,  and  the  successive  know¬ 
ing  that  corresponds  to  the  nature  and  movement  of  the 
created  universe. 

From  the  human  point  of  view,  God’s  knowledge  of  the 
events  of  time  appears  as  foreknowledge.  If  in  the  beginning 
of  the  gospel,  for  example,  he  knew  how  wide  would  be  its 
influence  to-day,  we  say  that  he  foreknew  it.  When  we  have 
said  this,  we  begin  to  wonder  whether  his  foreknowing  an 
event  does  not  foreordain  it,  or  render  it  absolutely  certain 
to  occur.  Surely  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  as  he  knows  it, 
we  say,  and  so  his  knowledge  unchangeably  fastens  the  event. 
But  in  this  judgment  there  is  some  mistaking  of  the  real 
nature  of  omniscience.  In  that  omniscience  in  which  God 
stands  alone,  nothing  in  his  creatures  resembling  it,  God 
does  not  foreknow:  he  knows.  It  is  only  in  the  human  suc¬ 
cessional  view  of  things  that  we  speak  of  foreknowledge: 
in  the  fundamental  quality  of  God’s  omniscience  there  is 
none.  With  him  all  knowledge  is  simultaneous,  save  in 
that  second  aspect  of  his  omniscience,  according  to  which  he 
is  aware  of  events  as  they  occur  in  order.  Foreknowledge 
is  a  human  name,  to  which  in  the  essential  quality  of  God 
there  is  nothing  that  corresponds.  He  knows,  he  does  not 
foreknow,  the  date  of  his  child’s  death  or  of  the  downfall  of 
a  nation. 

In  proportion  as  we  discern  this  divine  method  of  knowing, 
foreknowledge  will  cease  to  perplex  us.  In  this  light  it  does 
not  differ  from  knowledge.  But  we  cannot  conceive  that 
knowledge  of  events  has  any  power  to  determine  the  events. 
Not  even  God’s  knowledge  has  that  effect.  It  is  not  reason¬ 
able,  or  even  intelligible,  that  his  knowledge  should  be  the 
determining;  condition  of  occurrences.  There  are  efficient 
forces  of  God’s  creating,  whether  we  can  define  them  well  or 
not,  and  there  are  real  conditions.  Divine  knowledge  em- 


348 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


braces  all  these,  but  is  not  itself  a  force  or  a  condition.  It  is 
not  omniscience  that  determines  the  movement  of  the  tides, 
or  the  rise  and  fall  of  nations.  No  one  acts  as  if  it  were,  and 
what  has  troubled  so  many  is  a  catch  in  argument,  rather 
than  a  stumbling-block  in  the  field  of  fact.  From  the  doctrine 
of  omniscience  thus  misconceived  and  misapplied  there  has 
been  drawn  a  doctrine  of  human  helplessness ;  but  that  which 
ought  rather  to  be  inferred  from  it  is  rather  an  intelligent 
childlike  confidence  in  the  all-knowing  One. 

Omniscience  is  more  than  perception  and  awareness 
of  things.  We  have  described  it  as  a  true  knowledge  of 
things  as  they  really  are,  discernment  and  understanding  of 
that  which  really  is.  The  contents  of  the  universe,  past, 
present  and  future,  it  knows  correctly  and  without  error,  not 
merely  as  separate  facts  but  in  their  relation  to  one  another, 
to  the  whole,  and  to  God  himself.  The  one  unit  of  existence 
not  only  is  aware  of  the  other,  but  understands  it.  God 
understands  the  universe.  This  we  can  easily  say,  and 
believe,  and  yet  there  are  hard  questions  involved  in  it. 
Full  understanding  implies  full  knowledge  of  the  possibilities 
of  things,  not  only  of  what  they  actually  are,  but  of  what  they 
might  have  been.  It  seems  to  imply  ability  to  compare  that 
which  is  with  what  would  have  been  under  conditions  that 
never  existed.  Comparison  of  possible  universes  seems 
essential  to  the  wise  creation  of  one.  But  how  such  knowl¬ 
edge  is  possible  we  can  scarcely  see;  and  if  anything  is  by 
its  very  nature  essentially  unknowable,  of  course  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  omniscience  knows  it.  It  is  difficult,  or 
perhaps  impossible,  for  us  to  imagine  how  God  can  know  all 
alternatives — for  example,  what  would  have  occurred  in 
America  if  the  slave-trade  had  never  reached  its  shores,  or 
what  human  history  would  have  been  if  Mohammed  had  been 
slain  by  robbers  in  his  first  caravan  journey.  To  us  it  seems 
as  if  the  action  of  free  wills  were  not  knowable  in  advance,  and 
still  more  unknowable  seems  the  action  that  would  have 
oceurred  in  conditions  that  never  came  into  being.  Never¬ 
theless,  we  must  say  that  the  genuine  understanding  of  the 


OMNISCIENCE 


349 


universe  which  is  certainly  included  in  omniscience  does  imply 
knowledge  of  alternatives,  and  we  cannot  think  of  God  as 
fulfilling  his  relation  to  other  existence  without  such  knowl¬ 
edge.  Greater  difficulties  would  beset  our  thinking  if  we 
were  to  deny  it. 

The  very  thought  of  understanding  the  universe  is  too  great 
for  us,  and  yet  we  can  identify  some  of  its  contents.  Under¬ 
standing  of  the  universe  must  imply  knowledge  of  all  changes 
and  tendencies,  all  movements  by  which  things  fulfil  their 
nature,  and  all  nature  of  things  from  which  characteristic 
changes  proceed.  It  includes  ability  to  estimate  all  such 
changes  and  tendencies  for  exactly  what  they  are,  and  to 
judge  their  importance  in  the  universal  scheme.  For  the 
understanding  of  the  universe  implies  that  the  universe 
can  be  understood.  If  one  perfect  mind  can  grasp  it  all, 
that  means  that  there  is  a  scheme  of  things,  an  intelligible 
wholeness.  The  omniscient  God  knows  v/hat  end  his  uni¬ 
verse  is  designed  to  serve,  how  each  part  of  it  is  adapted  to 
serve  that  end,  and  how  well  each  part  is  filling  its  place.  It 
is  by  perfect  comprehension  of  the  whole  that  he  is  able  to 
hold  a  true  and  righteous  estimate  of  every  part. 

We  thus  reach  the  fact  that  in  omniscience  there  is  a  moral 
quality — a  fact  that  has  not  received  due  attention  in  Chris¬ 
tian  thought.  By  a  sad  mistake,  God’s  omniscience  has  often 
been  represented  as  scarcely  more  than  the  perception  and 
judgment  of  the  perfect  intellect.  If  it  is  conceived  more 
ethically,  still  the  recognition  of  the  moral  element  is  apt  to 
be  one-sided  and  incomplete.  The  truth  is  simply  that  the 
Being  who  has  the  knowledge  is  the  Being  who  has  the  charac¬ 
ter,  and  the  entire  character  of  God  conditions  all  his  knowing. 
No  knowledge  of  moral  beings  is  possible  to  God  that  is  not 
the  knowledge  of  a  perfect  moral  judge,  estimating  good  and 
evil  as  they  are.  Universal  knowledge  involves  universal  judg¬ 
ment,  and  universal  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  all-knowing 
God  is  omnipresent  and  perpetual.  This  aspect  of  omni¬ 
science  has  often  been  recognized,  and  men  aware  of  their 


350 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


sinfulness  have  felt  themselves  enveloped  in  a  searching  and 
condemnatory  presence  as  unescapable  as  the  atmosphere, 
and  the  present  holy  God  has  seemed  to  them  as  dreadful  as 
a  consuming  fire.  But  while  it  is  true  that  omniscience 
means  universal  judgment,  it  is  equally  true  that  omniscience 
means  universal  compassion.  The  omniscient  God  is  not 
only  Judge  but  Saviour.  God  is  love.  We  do  him  deep 
injustice  if  we  contemplate  his  omniscience  without  remem¬ 
bering  that  his  knowledge  is  pervaded  by  the  sympathetic 
quality.  That  which  he  knows  so  well  he  accounts  his  own, 
and  is  bearing  on  his  heart.  The  souls  that  his  knowledge 
searches  he  also  understands :  they  are  his  spiritual  offspring, 
capable  of  fellowship  with  him,  and  he  knows  them  with  the 
insight  of  love.  He  knows  their  evil  and  their  good,  their 
strength  and  weakness,  and  embraces  them  all  in  the  sym¬ 
pathetic  understanding  of  the  Saviour-God.  The  judgment 
that  his  omniscience  implies  is  the  judgment  at  once  of  right¬ 
eousness  and  of  compassion.  The  troubles  of  the  world  God 
knows  with  a  heart  of  sympathy.  If  it  were  not  so,  it  would 
be  happier  for  men  to  blot  out  their  belief  in  his  omniscience; 
for  a  Being  who  knew  this  present  world  only  as  a  Judge  and 
not  as  a  sympathetic  Friend  would  be  no  God  for  us.  But 
his  knowledge  of  all  human  sorrow  is  the  knowledge  of  One 
who  is  afflicted  in  all  the  afflictions  of  his  creatures.  He 
who  knows  all  is  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ,  who 
views  all  in  the  light  of  his  perfect  holiness,  his  fatherly  com¬ 
passion  and  his  redemptive  love. 

Knowing  all  with  such  a  holy,  righteous,  condemnatory, 
sympathetic,  friendly,  helpful  knowledge,  the  one  God  is 
omnipresent  and  eternal.  His  whole  universe  is  upon  his 
heart  as  well  as  his  mind,  and  thus  his  omniscience  becomes 
a  foundation  for  rich  and  satisfactory  religion.  He  who 
knows  is  he  who  can  be  trusted.  That  any  object  within  the 
field  of  omniscience  will  ever  be  misknown  or  misjudged  by 
the  omniscient  One  no  being  need  ever  suspect  or  fear.  He 
is  the  holy  and  trustworthy  One,  whose  knowledge  will  never 
be  unfairly  used  against  any.  So  his  omniscience  is  a  blessing 


OMNIPOTENCE 


351 


to  his  universe,  not  a  cloud  over  it,  or  a  reason  for  trembling. 
The  psalmist  was  right  in  esteeming  it  a  privilege  to  stand 
embraced  behind  and  before  in  the  knowledge  from  which 
no  darkness  could  hide  him  and  no  distance  remove.  All  the 
surer  and  more  blessed  is  our  confidence,  because  God^s 
knowledge  of  all  his  works  is  grounded  deep  in  knowledge 
of  himself,  and  in  his  own  sense  of  his  perfect  goodness  and 
perfect  sufificiency  to  all  existence. 

13.  OMNIPOTENCE 

Companion  to  omnipresence  and  omniscience  is  Omnipo¬ 
tence.  As  in  those  attributes,  so  in  this,  the  unity  and  soleness 
of  God  is  asserted,  and  the  doctrine  is  that  of  monotheism; 
for  omnipotence  is  no  other  than  unipotence,  the  adequacy 
and  control  of  the  One,  in  relation  to  all  that  is  not  himself. 
Of  the  two  units  of  existence  the  One  is  master  of  the 
other.  God  is  master  of  the  universe,  and  holds  it  in  control. 
He  is  able,  or  adequate,  or  sufficient.  He  is  the  Almighty, 
competent  to  the  work. 

The  'Christian  doctrine  of  God,  like  the  Hebrew,  has 
always  affirmed  the  divine  omnipotence,  by  which  has  been 
meant  complete  and  perfect  power,  or  ability  to  do  all  things 
that  he  would.  Probably  the  most  prominent  element  in  the 
doctrine  has  been  the  simple  idea  of  power.  In  the  Scriptures, 
however,  the  starting-point  is  not  the  abstract  conception 
of  power,  so  much  as  it  is  the  more  concrete  idea  of  control, 
or  mastery.  The  Almighty  is  not  merely  the  All-Strong,  but 
rather  the  All-Master,  the  strong  Lord  of  all.  In  his  master¬ 
ship  is  of  course  implied  power  sufficient  for  such  a  relation, 
yet  apparently  the  sufficiency  of  power  was  inferred  from  the 
universal  control,  rather  than  the  universal  control  from  the 
sufficiency  of  power.  The  Almighty  of  the  Scriptures  is  the 
All-Sovereign,  rather  than  merely  the  possessor  of  immeasu¬ 
rable  energy. 

Evidently  this  is  the  more  religious  conception  of  omnipo- 


352 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


tence,  or  at  least  the  more  worthily  religious.  It  is  a  worthy 
act  of  worship  to  adore  the  Lord  of  all,  who  possesses  with 
other  qualities  the  power  that  corresponds  to  universal  lord- 
ship.  But  in  power  itself  there  is  nothing  to  worship,  though 
there  may  be  much  to  admire  and  wonder  at.  If  mere  power 
is  worshipped,  as  too  often  it  has  been,  it  makes  a  religion  of 
fear  as  men  look  toward  God,  and  cruelty  or  indifference  as 
they  look  upon  their  fellows.  If,  in  a  farther  stage,  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  power  becomes  prominent,  and  the  idea  of  omnipo¬ 
tence  rules  in  the  realm  of  thought,  then  it  proves  that  the 
intellectual  conception  of  power  is  not  competent  to  command 
the  best  religious  feeling.  The  general  thought  of  the  Bible 
is  best,  according  to  which  omnipotence  is  a  concrete  and 
practical  fact,  not  power,  but  a  universal  control  in  which 
power  sufficient  is  implied.  We  need  not  fear  that  our 
conception  of  the  power  of  God  will  be  diminished  if  it  takes 
this  form.  On  the  contrary  it  is  much  more  likely  to  be  a 
living  truth  to  us,  and  thus  be  really  great.  An  abstract 
conception  of  boundless  might  is  far  less  effective  in  its  great¬ 
ness  than  recognition  of  the  living  God  as  acting  upon  all  as 
Master,  and  using  all  power  that  his  work  upon  so  vast  a 
universe  requires. 

So  omnipotence,  in  the  Christian  doctrine,  is  adequate 
ability.  It  is  the  sufficiency  of  God.  This  brief  definition 
declares  first  that  God  is  equal  in  power  to  all  possible  de¬ 
mands  of  his  universe  upon  him.  Taken  in  connection 
with  what  we  perceive  of  the  divine  transcendence,  it  says 
more  than  this.  God  is  greater  than  his  universe,  and  the 
whole  of  his  power  is  not  exhausted  or  required  by  its  de¬ 
mands.  He  is  adequate  to  more  than  he  is  doing.  God  is 
All-Master,  and  competent  to  be  Master  of  more.  Thus 
our  idea  of  omnipotence  is  extended  beyond  all  reach  of 
words  or  imagining.  God  is  mighty  even  beyond  all  demands 
of  that  universe  which  so  far  exceeds  our  power  of  thought. 

In  this  large  view,  the  doctrine  of  omnipotence  at  once 
rises  above  puzzles  as  to  whether  God  can  do  this  or  that 
particular  thing.  If  we  were  to  start  with  defining  omnipo- 


OMNIPOTENCE 


353 


tence  as  absolutely  unlimited  ability,  such  puzzles  would  lie 
directly  before  us,  and  have  to  be  considered.  Perplexity  as 
to  whether  God  can  do  certain  special  things  that  look  im¬ 
possible  has  done  much  to  dim  the  glory  of  omnipotence  for 
Christian  faith.  But  the  definition  that  has  now  been  given 
leaves  such  questions  aside.  We  need  not  inquire  whether 
God  could  create  a  world  in  which  two  and  two  make  five. 
The  doctrine  of  omnipotence  does  not  imply  that  God  can 
do  everything  that  can  be  mentioned.  It  does  not  even 
suggest  the  question  whether  he  can  do  things  that  imply 
some  essential  contradiction  or  contain  some  irremovable 
absurdity.  There  are  two  units  of  existence,  God  and  the 
universe;  and  the  doctrine  of  omnipotence  declares  that 
God  can  do  all  that  is  required  by  either  of  them.  He  can 
do  all  that  his  own  nature  and  character  call  for,  and  all  that 
his  universe  demands.  The  one  field  of  existence  which  is 
not  God  is  inhabited  and  controlled  by  God,  the  one  Being 
who  is  able  to  do  the  work  of  it,  and  to  do  in  it  whatever 
manner  corresponds  to  what  he  himself  is.  He  is  thus  ade¬ 
quate  to  his  universe  because  he  is  more  and  greater  than  his 
universe;  and  this  sufficiency  or  adequacy  to  his  universe 
and  to  himself  is  his  omnipotence.  This  doctrine  suggests 
unanswerable  questions,  but  it  suggests  no  absurdities  or 
fruitless  puzzles. 

According  to  popular  thought,  omnipotence  is  exhibited 
chiefly  in  the  material  universe  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the 
other  in  the  ordering  of  events  and  securing  of  results  in 
human  affairs.  It  is  shown  in  that  immense  sum  of  energy 
which  we  wonderingly  observe  in  the  operations  of  the 
universe:  this  is  the  power  of  God,  and  it  is  boundless.  It 
is  shown  also  in  that  general  providential  control  by  which 
God  is  able  to  overrule  events  and  bring  out  of  them  his  own 
intended  issue :  this  also  is  the  power  of  God,  and  it  is  suflS- 
cient. 

As  for  the  former  of  these  fields  of  omnipotence,  we  can 
only  say  that  we  observe  in  actual  operation  an  amount  of 


354 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


energy  that  is  perfectly  overwhelming  to  contemplate.  This 
is  a  fact  that  suggests  agnosticism,  for  a  genuine  clear  con¬ 
ception  of  the  source  and  origin  of  all  this  energy  seems  hope¬ 
lessly  beyond  our  reach.  We  accept  it  as  a  fact  existing,  but 
how  can  we  go  farther  and  account  for  it  ?  Origins  of  energy 
are  in  any  case  beyond  our  human  experience,  and  beyond 
our  understanding.  The  Christian  doctrine  offers  no  ex¬ 
planation  in  detail :  it  only  proclaims  God,  and  declares  that 
he  is  the  source  of  all  power.  It  is  by  reason  of  his  omnipo¬ 
tence  that  the  universe  is  full  of  organized  and  operative 
energy.  This  is  the  only  alternative  to  agnosticism  on  the 
subject:  we  must  say  that  God  is  the  source  of  energy,  or 
else  that  energy  is  here  and  we  know  not  whence  it  is.  But 
the  affirmation  of  an  almighty  God  is  all  that  the  Christian 
doctrine  has  to  offer.  It  has  no  theory  of  the  manner  in 
which  God^s  power  goes  forth  in  the  forms  in  which  we  dis¬ 
cover  power  at  work,  and  Christian  thought  would  suffer 
no  surprise  or  discomfiture  if  no  further  knowledge  of  this 
mystery  were  ever  to  be  had. 

In  the  latter  of  these  fields  of  omnipotence,  the  providential 
and  practical,  we  come  to  the  region  in  which  moral  agents 
are  to  be  dealt  with,  and  existence  is  full  of  moral  significance. 
Here,  if  omnipotence  is  to  have  any  meaning,  we  must  define 
it  in  other  terms  than  those  of  physical  power.  Thus  we  are 
at  once  introduced  to  the  higher  meaning  of  the  doctrine. 
We  wrong  the  idea  of  omnipotence  if  we  picture  it  mainly 
as  power  effective  in  the  physical  realm,  and  as  bearing  a 
character  such  as  physical  energy  suggests.  We  must  not 
allow  Samson  or  Hercules  to  stand  as  type  of  the  power  of 
God,  or  think  of  gravitation  as  a  sufficient  symbol  of  his 
mighty  working.  An  omnipotence  that  is  not  operative  in 
the  field  that  corresponds  to  his  character  cannot  be  the 
omnipotence  of  the  God  of  Jesus  Christ.  Physical  omnipo¬ 
tence  is  but  the  ground  on  which  we  build  the  nobler  idea  of 
moral  omnipotence. 

The  Christian  doctrine  affirms  that  while  God  is  adequate 
to  the  universe  in  respect  of  its  physical  being,  he  is  morally 


OMNIPOTENCE 


355 


and  spiritually  adequate  to  the  universe  also.  This  is  what 
is  meant  by  moral  omnipotence.  He  is  able  to  pour  into  the 
universe  the  power  which  its  physical  necessities  require, 
and  he  is  able  also  to  pour  into  the  universe  the  moral  and 
spiritual  energy  by  which  the  work  that  corresponds  to  his 
character  shall  be  accomplished  in  its  existence.  In  this  he 
is  adequate  to  himself,  able  to  do  justice  to  his  own  moral 
nature,  and  thus  to  do  justice  to  the  moral  nature  of  that  which 
he  has  created.  He  is  as  capable  of  supplying  the  moral  and 
spiritual  needs  of  his  universe  as  he  is  of  filling  it  with  physical 
energy.  His  fulness  of  spiritual  power  for  the  use  of  spiritual 
beings  is  as  inexhaustible  as  his  infinity  of  power  for  physical 
purposes.  In  all  moral  and  spiritual  relations  God  is  the 
sufficient  One,  adequate  to  himself,  greater  than  the  universe 
and  free  in  action  toward  it,  equal  to  its  needs,  and  equal 
to  more  if  its  needs  were  greater. 

This  affirmation  of  moral  omnipotence  is  the  heart  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  omnipotence  of  God.  It  is  evident 
at  a  glance  that  if  this  were  omitted  omnipotence  would  be 
nothing  but  strength,  and  worship  of  the  Almighty  would  be 
only  an  exaltation  of  force,  degrading  to  the  worshipper  and 
unworthy  of  God.  Without  moral  omnipotence  there  could 
be  no  sure  providential  control,  and  no  trustworthy  ability 
to  turn  human  movements  to  divine  purpose.  Moral 
power  indeed  is  all  that  makes  the  doctrine  of  omnipotence  a 
religious  doctrine.  The  Almighty  whom  we  can  worship 
must  be  almighty  in  the  realm  of  the  spirit.  We  cannot  rest 
without  the  confidence  that  in  that  realm  he  is  not  only  potent 
but  omnipotent,  able  to  do  all  that  his  own  nature  and  the 
needs  of  his  universe  require. 

What  the  moral  omnipotence  of  God  means  for  the  uni¬ 
verse  we  can  forecast  only  in  the  vision  of  faith.  By  natural 
interpretation  the  meaning  of  it  is  that  God  is  able  in  his  own 
time  to  bring  to  pass  the  perfect  doing  of  his  own  worthy  will 
by  his  creatures,  and  bring  all  spiritual  beings  into  moral 
fellowship  with  himself — not  of  course  by  compulsion,  for 
that  would  be  neither  worthy  of  him  nor  possible,  but  by 


356 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


effective  moral  means.  If  God  is  able  to  accomplish  this 
result,  there  is  no  need  to  show  that  he  is  willing,  or  to  argue 
that  it  will  be  done.  But  here  we  meet  our  own  limitations. 
We  cannot  forecast  such  an  outcome  on  the  ground  of  any¬ 
thing  that  we  have  seen  as  yet,  for  though  God’s  work  is 
great,  the  signs  of  a  victory  that  can  be  called  universal  are 
not  visible  to  us.  Probably  in  this  world  they  cannot  be; 
for  we  can  see  that  if  God  is  to  do  a  work  that  corresponds 
to  moral  omnipotence  he  must  have  at  his  command  a  far 
vaster  sweep  of  time  than  our  human  powers  can  even  imagine. 
Clouds  and  darkness  indeed  are  round  about  him  still.  How 
even  God  can  overcome  the  resistances  we  cannot  see.  But 
while  we  acknowledge  our  littleness,  and  humbly  accept  the 
consequences  of  our  narrow  range  of  view,  it  is  necessary  to 
insist  that  moral  omnipotence  must  not  be  denied  to  God, 
or  left  in  abeyance  in  our  thinking  because  we  know  so  little. 
The  right  way  out  of  our  difficulties  is  never  by  diminishing 
our  conception  of  God.  Moral  omnipotence  is  one  of  the 
fixed  points  of  Christian  faith,  and  must  be  held  as  the  joy 
and  crown  of  moral  existence,  and  allowed  to  put  forth  its 
uplifting  power  upon  our  life.  For  even  though  we  made  no 
inquiry  about  the  destinies  of  a  universe,  a  morally  omnipo¬ 
tent  God  is  necessary  for  the  peace  and  comfort  of  a  single 
soul. 


IV.  EVIDENCE 


1.  THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 

Is  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  true?  In  other  words, 
Is  there  such  a  living  God  as  that  doctrine  proclaims  ? 

The  time  for  considering  this  question  is  after  the  doctrine 
has  been  set  forth.  Thus  far  in  the  present  work  there  has 
been  no  effort  to  prove  the  doctrine  true:  now  comes  the 
great  inquiry  whether  the  view  of  God  that  has  been  presented 
will  stand.  It  is  true  that  the  opposite  order  has  frequently 
been  followed.  Christian  Theology  has  often  begun  its 
work  with  the  endeavour  to  prove  the  existence  of  God,  and 
has  thus  undertaken  to  defend  the  most  vital  of  its  doctrines 
before  it  had  been  formulated.  But  it  is  not  best  to  try  to 
establish  the  existence  of  God  until  we  have  shown  what 
we  mean  by  God.  In  that  way  lie  ambiguity  in  the  argument 
and  uncertainty  in  the  conclusion.  Doubtless  in  presenting 
and  defining  the  doctrine  there  must  be  some  attempt  at 
proof,  but  the  attempt  is  only  incidental.  Proof  comes  at 
the  end.  Doubtless  also  the  very  presentation  contains  an 
element  of  proof,  for  a  worthy  conception  of  God  has  genuine 
self-evidencing  power.  The  doubt  concerning  him  which 
is  always  possible  is  less  easy  when  his  character  and  relations 
with  men  are  seen  in  their  Christian  simplicity  and  natural¬ 
ness.  Nevertheless,  the  time  comes  when  we  must  assert 
that  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  is  true,  and  consider 
whether  the  proposition  is  tenable. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  whole  question  comes  up 
at  once,  in  all  its  greatness.  We  do  not  encounter  it  in  parts. 
We  do  not  first  seek  to  show  that  there  exists  a  God,  afterward 
to  be  defined;  nor  do  we  build  our  argument  up  in  successive 

357 


358 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


stages.  Our  search  for  evidence  concerning  God  does  not 
follow  the  line  of  history,  or  of  philosophical  development. 
We  do  not  begin  with  natural  religion,  and  ascend  through  a 
rising  scale  of  evidences,  and  watch  the  conception  while  it 
clear  itself  of  primitive  errors,  and  finally  discover  in  Christ 
the  material  for  making  a  satisfactory  doctrine  complete. 
This  would  be  a  legitimate  process,  but  it  is  not  the  process 
that  is  now  required.  In  our  construction  of  the  Christian 
doctrine  we  have  already  come  to  know  what  we  mean  when 
we  speak  of  God,  and  the  meaning  that  we  have  thus  obtained 
is  now  to  be  judged  as  a  whole.  We  are  now  to  inquire 
whether  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  God,  or  God  thus 
conceived,  is  a  reality.  Under  the  influence  of  Jesus  Christ 
we  have  learned  to  think  of  God  as  the  personal  Spirit,  per¬ 
fectly  good,  who  in  holy  love  creates,  sustains  and  orders 
all.  Now  we  take  at  once  this  vast  conception,  and  inquire 
whether  there  exists  a  reality  to  which  it  corresponds.  This 
is  the  great  and  only  question,  in  which  all  minor  questions 
are  wrapped  up. 

The  question  thus  raised  is  a  question  of  fact,  or  of  reality. 
The  Christian  doctrine  proclaims  one  only  God,  and  declares 
that  the  gracious  and  holy  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  is  he; 
and  nothing  can  be  more  thoroughly  a  question  of  fact  than 
the  question  whether  this  is  so.  It  deals  not  with  mere  theory 
or  abstraction,  but  with  reality  of  the  most  practical  and 
decisive  kind.  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  concerning  a  reality 
that  we  inquire;  for  we  ask.  Is  it  right  for  us  to  interpret 
our  life  in  the  light  of  such  a  Being?  are  we  safe  in  com¬ 
mitting  ourselves  to  him?  is  he  there  when  we  trust  him? 
and  does  the  world  mean  what  such  a  God  would  make  it 
mean  ?  Belief  in  such  a  God  would  give  a  solid  foundation 
for  all  virtue,  righteousness  and  hope — and  is  there  such  a 
foundation  ?  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  in  the  world  of  concrete 
reality  that  our  question  is  to  be  answered.  The  truth  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  is  to  be  judged  as  other  questions  of  fact 
are  judged,  in  the  light  of  such  knowledge  as  3xperience  has 


THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 


359 


brought  to  living  men.  Its  affirmation  is  to  be  tested  by 
comparison  with  the  large  experience  of  mankind,  and  the 
facts  with  which  men  are  acquainted.  Its  appeal  is  made  to 
the  human  faculties  of  perception  and  judgment.  There 
is  no  external  requirement  that  we  shall  believe  in  God,  nor 
is  there  any  such  thing  as  believing  in  him  at  the  command 
of  authority.  We  have  to  discover  whether  belief  in  the 
Christian  God  is  possible.  We  must  pass  judgment,  in  the 
light  of  all  that  we  know,  whether  the  Christian  affirmation 
concerning  him  will  stand.  This  judgment  must  be  formed 
in  this  present  world  of  concrete  reality.  The  question  of 
God  is  every  man’s  question,  in  the  sense  that  every  man  is 
interested  in  it,  and  must  pass  upon  it  for  himself;  in  the 
sense  also  that  every  man  lives  in  the  world  where  it  is  to  be 
answered,  and  has  in  his  own  life  the  facts  that  are  most 
decisive  of  the  solution.  Not  in  the  difficult  region  of  abstract 
thought  is  the  main  work  to  be  done,  and  not  in  the  mysterious 
depths  of  divine  being  is  the  chief  material  for  conclusions 
to  be  found.  It  is  in  the  common  world  that  the  argument 
proceeds.  Just  here,  where  we  all  know  and  are  ignorant 
and  our  rational  being  is  put  to  the  test  of  life;  just  here, 
where  we  struggle  with  the  moral  problem  and  obey  or  sin 
against  the  best  that  we  know;  just  here,  where  life  with  all 
its  mysteries  and  possibilities  is  upon  us  and  we  must  solve 
its  problem  if  we  can — ^just  here  is  the  question  of  God  to  be 
anwered,  as  other  questions  of  reality  are  answered,  in  the 
light  of  common  knowledge. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  Christian  doctrine  requires 
to  be  received  as  other  conclusions  concerning  questions  of 
fact  should  be  received.  It  requires  practical  acceptance. 
A  theoretical  acceptance  of  fact  may  indeed  suffice  if  the  fact 
is  far  away  from  real  life,  but  not  if  it  is  near,  practical  and 
important.  In  that  case  good  acceptance  implies  putting 
the  fact  to  use.  The  Christian  belief  in  God  is  more  than 
assent  to  his  existence:  it  is  personal  conviction  and  confi¬ 
dence,  with  loyalty  and  devotion,  into  which  a  man  enters 
with  the  best  energy  of  his  entire  being.  Though  he  profess 


360 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


a  belief  and  suppose  that  he  holds  it,  he  has  not  done  justice 
to  the  case  in  hand  until  he  has  accepted  the  fact  of  God  as  a 
fact  to  live  by.  This  urgent  practical  quality  in  Christian 
belief  corresponds  perfectly  to  the  nature  of  the  question  of 
God  as  a  question  of  fact. 

The  question  of  fact  concerning  the  reality  of  God  may 
be  presented  with  one  or  another  of  its  elements  at  the  front. 
The  conception  is  many-sided.  Proclaiming  the  God  whom 
he  discovers,  a  student  of  nature  may  set  one  aspect  of  the 
divine  being  at  the  front,  and  a  student  of  life  another,  while 
within  each  of  these  fields  there  may  be  emphasis  upon  any 
one  of  various  elements.  The  Christian  doctrine  has  its 
own  point  of  view  and  special  emphasis.  No  one  doubts  what 
it  is,  though  the  fact  discerned  by  all  has  not  been  fully  put 
to  its  helpful  use. 

The  specialty  of  the  Christian  doctrine  resides  in  the  char¬ 
acter  which  it  attributes  to  God,  and  the  relations  with  men 
in  which  his  character  is  expressed.  It  is  first  a  doctrine  in 
the  realm  of  morality  and  religion.  It  has  visions  of  infinite 
holiness  and  love,  and  declares  that  these  qualities  determine 
what  God  is  to  other  beings.  Its  emphasis  falls  upon  per¬ 
fect  goodness.  Attributes  that  are  not  moral  in  themselves 
it  includes  in  its  predication,  but  in  him  they  cease  to  be 
non-moral.  It  calls  him  omnipotent  and  omniscient,  for 
example,  but  even  these  attributes  it  beholds  suffused  with 
character.  Even  his  creatorship  is  important  to  the  Christian 
doctrine  chiefly  because  it  is  the  primary  fact  in  his  practical 
relation  with  men.  For  its  central  substance  the  Christian 
doctrine  has  the  inherent  goodness  of  God,  and  the  expression 
of  that  goodness  in  his  relations  with  his  creatures.  Holiness 
and  love  expressed  in  Fatherhood  and  Saviourhood  as  these 
are  revealed  in  Christ — that  is  the  heart  of  the  matter. 
Hence  in  our  inquiry  as  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  the 
primary  question  is  the  question  of  character.  We  ask 
whether  we  can  hold  that  there  exists  a  Being  worthy  to  be 
called  God,  and  filling  the  place  of  God  to  all  other  existence, 
who  is  the  eternal  holiness  and  love,  and  is  related  to  all  other 


THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 


361 


being  as  holiness  and  love  must  be  related,  in  moral  govern¬ 
ment  and  spiritual  grace.  The  inquiry  touches  the  whole 
sphere  of  the  Godhead,  but  here  falls  the  emphasis.  Is  the 
good  God  a  reality? 

It  must  be  added  at  once  that  all  doctrine  of  character 
implies  an  equally  clear  and  positive  doctrine  of  rationality. 
Rationality  and  character  may  be  distinguished  in  thought, 
but  are  never  separate  in  fact.  Each  implies  the  other. 
None  but  a  reasonable  being  can  be  a  moral  being.  A 
good  God  therefore  must  be  a  Being  of  rational  powers; 
and  the  perfect  goodness  can  be  attributed  only  to  the  Being 
in  whom  dwells  the  perfect  reason.  Hence  all  evidence  of 
the  rationality  of  the  universal  order,  and  of  the  Mind  which 
it  represents,  falls  readily  into  its  place  in  support  of  the 
Christian  doctrine.  That  doctrine  affirms  the  perfectness 
of  the  divine  mind  as  well  as  the  eternal  goodness  of  the 
divine  heart,  and  welcomes  all  evidence  of  the  rationality 
of  the  universe  in  which  the  divine  mind  has  expressed  itself. 
It  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  because  Christianity 
is  a  religion,  evidence  for  its  doctrine  of  God  must  be  found 
exclusively  in  religious  experience.  In  that  region  lies  its 
specialty,  indeed,  but  the  heavens  may  still  declare  the  glory 
of  God,  and  the  earth  be  full  of  his  wisdom.  Without  evi¬ 
dence  from  this  field  the  proof  of  God  would  be  incomplete. 
Hence  we  must  look  not  only  at  moral  and  religious  reasons 
for  belief  in  him,  but  at  rational  grounds  as  well. 

Some  helpful  light  may  be  obtained  in  advance  upon  the 
kind  of  evidence  by  which  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  is 
to  be  supported.  The  principle  is  very  simple.  Obviously 
the  broad  fact  is  that  the  nature  of  the  evidence,  in  order  to  be 
valuable,  must  correspond  to  the  nature  of  the  doctrine. 
This  one  fact  will  help  us  draw  the  line  between  various 
kinds  of  evidence  that  are  offered  for  our  use. 

If  the  manner  of  proof  must  correspond  to  the  nature  of 
the  doctrine,  one  of  our  first  certainties  will  be  that  we 
cannot  have  demonstration.  Not  by  strict  logical  process  is 


362 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  to  be  established.  There  is  an 
ancient  prejudice  in  favour  of  demonstration,  or  at  least  an 
impression  that  it  is  far  the  most  desirable  kind  of  proof, 
— as  indeed  it  is,  in  its  own  field.  But  it  has  often  been 
tacitly  assumed  that  whatever  cannot  be  proved  in  this 
strictest  sense  is  not  certainly  to  be  known  as  true.  Accord¬ 
ingly  it  has  been  supposed  that  there  must  be  some  straight 
and  unmistakable  road  of  argument  to  the  great  conclusion 
concerning  God,  a  road  of  syllogistic  reasoning,  so  constructed 
that  any  sane  mind  must  follow  it  and  acknowledge  the  result. 
Much  labour  has  been  spent  upon  such  arguments,  in  hope 
that  conclusive  demonstration  might  be  obtained.  But  the 
results  are  disappointing.  We  must  say  without  reserve 
that  strict  demonstration  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God 
is  impossible. 

To  show  this  impossibility  it  might  be  enough  to  allege 
the  greatness  of  the  subject.  The  conclusion  that  is  sought 
is  too  vast  to  be  embraced  in  the  premises  of  a  syllogism. 
Whether  or  not  some  parts  or  elements  of  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  of  God  may  be  demonstrable,  certainly  the  doctrine  as 
a  whole  is  too  vast  and  comprehensive  to  be  contained  in  the 
premises  of  any  syllogism  that  can  be  devised. 

Yet  this  reason  for  the  impossibility,  good  though  it  is, 
is  a  formal  and  external  one,  dealing  with  the  dimensions  of 
the  subject  rather  than  with  the  subject  itself.  Our  view 
of  the  doctrine  thus  far  has  been  of  little  use  if  it  has  not  shown 
us  that  it  lies  in  a  region  where  belief  comes  by  other  means 
than  logic.  What  is  it  that  we  affirm  of  God?  We  affirm 
that  he  is  one,  the  God  of  all;  that  he  inhabits  his  creation, 
and  is  in  spiritual  communication  with  spiritual  beings  who 
bear  his  likeness ;  that  he  is  worthy  of  the  love  and  confidence 
of  all  who  live,  since  he  is  the  perfect  holiness  and  love;  that 
he  is  rightful  Lord  of  all,  and  Friend  and  Saviour  to  the  sinful 
and  needy;  that  he  has  made  us  for  himself,  and  our  heart 
is  restless  until  it  rests  in  him.  Shall  we  attempt  to  demon¬ 
strate  this  ?  Can  we  hope  to  do  so  ?  Is  there  any  such  thing 
as  proving  such  a  God,  in  such  manner  that  no  right  mind  can 


THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 


363 


depart  from  the  path  by  which  we  lead  to  our  conclusion? 
No.  The  conclusion  and  the  method  do  not  correspond. 
Our  affirmations  are  not  of  a  kind  to  stand  at  the  end  of  a 
logical  process.  The  Christian  belief  in  God  is  a  great  con¬ 
viction,  attained  through  reasoning,  experience,  and  faith,  a 
conviction  to  which  the  soul  is  led  by  the  various  influences 
of  life,  the  universe  and  God,  in  which  a  man  rests  because 
its  foundations  are  deep  and  broad  and  eternal.  It  is  a  con¬ 
viction  that  carries  with  it  the  affections  of  the  heart  and  the 
devotion  of  the  will,  as  well  as  the  assent  of  the  intellect. 
Such  a  conviction  must  be  reached  by  other  means  than 
argument.  Demonstration  is  of  the  intellect  alone.  It  is 
a  true  saying  that  there  is  no  necessary  love  between  the  soul 
and  the  last  step  in  a  logical  process.  Belief  in  God  is  larger 
and  more  profound.  The  character  of  the  invisible  Spirit 
cannot  be  demonstrated,  neither  can  even  his  existence  or  his 
relation  to  us  men;  and  if  they  could,  still  the  demonstration 
would  not  introduce  the  right  kind  of  belief  in  realities  so 
high  and  spiritual.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  God  moves 
in  a  realm  where  spiritual  discernment  dwells  and  love  is 
at  home,  and  not  outside  that  realm  is  the  chief  evidence  of 
God  to  be  found. 

This  is  to  say  that  the  Christian  belief  in  God  cannot  be 
reached  by  any  process  that  is  the  same  for  all  minds.  One 
must  come  to  it  by  one  road  and  another  by  another,  for  it  is 
at  once  too  large  and  too  spiritual  for  logical  uniformity. 
Arguments  of  many  kinds  are  helpful  to  it,  but  out  of  the 
boundless  field  of  existence  and  the  fruitful  soil  of  ex¬ 
perience,  evidence  in  endless  variety  in  support  of  it  must 
come.  Plainly  then  the  evidence  cannot  be  of  uniform 
character  or  force,  or  equally  convincing  to  all  persons. 
There  is  no  overmastering  proof  that  can  put  belief  in  God 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt.  There  can  be  no  formula 
for  the  Christian  belief.  The  great  conviction  must  come  as 
it  can.  There  may  indeed  be  a  formal  belief,  produced  by 
formal  proof.  Men  may  call  themselves  believers  in  God 
because  they  have  followed  a  line  of  proof  that  satisfies  them. 


364 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Such  belief  is  not  to  be  despised,  for  it  has  its  value,  and  fulfils 
important  uses  in  the  history  of  religion;  but  it  is  not  such 
belief  as  the  significance  of  the  living  God  demands  and  the 
Christian  doctrine  contemplates.  To  that  larger  and  richer 
conviction  there  exists  no  single  road. 

This  impossibility  of  demonstration  is  not  to  be  regretted. 
That  ancient  impression,  amounting  almost  to  a  superstition, 
that  demonstration  is  the  only  sure  way  to  sound  knowledge, 
has  been  renewed  in  modified  form  in  our  time  under  the 
influence  of  science.  But  it  is  a  superstition  that  ought  to 
die.  There  are  other  sound  ways  of  knowing  besides  the 
logical  way.  Only  the  lesser  part  of  truth  has  come  by 
demonstration.  The  strictly  inductive  method  of  learning 
is  immensely  valuable,  but  it  is  a  mistake  to  suspect  that  it 
is  the  only  road  to  truth.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  God 
employs  it,  but  it  makes  use  of  other  approaches  too. 

Christian  Theology  has  long  experience  with  arguments 
for  the  existence  of  God.  There  is  a  well-known  group  of 
arguments,  long  venerable,  that  may  be  called  the  ancient 
contribution  of  philosophy  to  theism.  The  Cosmological 
argument  has  inferred  from  the  existence  of  the  world  a 
sufficient  cause  therefor.  The  Teleological  argument  has 
inferred  from  adaptations  in  the  world  an  intending  Mind. 
The  Moral  or  Anthropological  argument  has  inferred  from 
the  ethical  nature  of  man  a  moral  source  and  ground  of 
existence.  The  Ontological  argument  has  inferred  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  an  infinite  and  perfect  Being  from  the  necessary  ideas 
of  the  human  mind.  All  these  arguments  have  been  cast  and 
recast  in  syllogistic  form,  and  turned  to  the  various  use  of 
changing  generations.  They  are  justly  venerated,  for  they 
represent  strong  thought  upon  the  profoundest  problems  of 
existence.  The  material  that  they  have  handled  is  of  perma¬ 
nent  value  and  cannot  be  lost  to  theology:  it  is  certain  to  be 
used  in  substance,  though  forms  may  change.  But  at  present 
the  ancient  arguments  in  their  familiar  forms  are  retiring 
from  their  old  prominence,  because  it  is  felt  that  they  do  not 


THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 


365 


now  accomplish  what  they  originally  proposed.  Probably 
they  will  never  again  be  largely  used,  in  the  forms  in  which 
they  have  come  to  us  from  the  past.  Knowledge  and  thought 
have  changed  so  much  that  the  ancient  arguments  do  not 
meet  the  test — they  do  not  correspond  to  the  nature  of  the 
question  as  it  now  exists.  Now,  as  in  other  ages,  great 
changes  in  knowledge  and  thought  require  that  the  evidence 
concerning  God  be  cast  in  new  forms,  and  be  welcomed  from 
new  quarters. 

It  might  seem  that  an  argument  once  good  must  be  good 
forever.  But  the  fact  is  that  no  argument  upon  a  vital  theme 
can  be  estimated  by  itself,  or  be  effective  without  regard  to 
the  manner  in  which  it  fits  in  with  known  truth  around  it. 
To  be  convincing,  an  argument  must  move  in  the  same  realm 
and  live  in  the  same  world  with  the  men  who  are  to  be  con¬ 
vinced.  To  be  valid  with  a  given  generation,  it  must  have 
the  same  large  presuppositions  that  underlie  the  thought 
of  that  generation.  It  must  not  imply  presuppositions  that 
no  longer  exist.  Just  as  reasoning  that  implied  the  Ptolemaic 
view  of  the  solar  system  was  of  no  effect  when  the  Copernican 
view  had  been  established,  so  any  reasoning  that  implies 
philosophical  or  scientific  conceptions  that  have  been  super¬ 
seded  needs  at  least  to  be  recast  before  it  can  be  effective, 
and  may  prove  to  have  no  place  at  all  in  the  later  time. 
Genuine  truth  that  has  been  maintained  upon  one  ground 
must  be  maintained  upon  some  other  when  the  presupposi¬ 
tions  of  thought  have  changed.  This  is  no  hardship  or 
misfortune :  it  is  a  necessary  part  in  human  progress,  affecting 
all  departments  of  thought  alike.  It  is  as  important  in  chem¬ 
istry  as  in  theology.  Of  necessity  it  affects  the  standing  of 
arguments  concerning  the  existence  of  God.  Here,  as  every¬ 
where,  arguments  that  depend  upon  principles  or  mental 
methods  now  abandoned,  or  require  a  view  of  facts  that  can¬ 
not  now  be  held,  cannot  now  be  effective,  and  must  not  be 
relied  upon.  To  wield  them  with  power  is  impossible,  since 
our  age  like  any  other  must  be  governed  by  the  views  of 
reality  that  have  entered  into  its  life.  To  whatever  extent 


366 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  venerable  arguments  foi  the  existence  of  God  fail  to  meet 
this  test,  to  that  extent  they  are  unavailable  for  present  use, 
and  must  at  least  be  modified  before  they  can  be  used  with 
power.  Yet  they  do  not  perish,  but  only  pass  their  value  on, 
to  be  as  great  as  ever  in  the  later  time. 

The  Ontological  argument  illustrates  the  effect  of  a  deep 
change  in  the  current  presuppositions.  It  endeavours  to 
deduce  from  the  necessary  modes  of  human  thought  the 
necessary  existence  of  a  perfect  Being.  It  has  been  variously 
constructed,  but  always  with  this  one  object,  and  it  has  always 
been  felt  that  to  argue  toward  this  end  could  not  be  all  in 
vain.  Yet  to  the  modern  mind  the  argument  is  not  successful. 
It  does  not  go  farther  than  to  establish  the  reasonableness  of 
its  conclusion,  it  does  not  establish  the  conclusion  itself.  This 
is  doubtless  a  useful  service  to  thought,  but  it  is  not  proof: 
if  it  had  not  been  confounded  with  proof  the  argument  might 
have  better  standing  now.  It  was  once  regarded  as  proof, 
but  that  was  when  presuppositions  were  different.  It  was 
once  assumed  that  to  prove  an  abstract  proposition  was  to 
establish  a  fact.  There  was  full  belief  in  the  reality  of  ab¬ 
stract  conceptions;  and  upon  the  basis  of  such  belief  greater 
value  was  attributed  to  abstract  argument  than  it  could  have 
on  any  other  ground.  But  the  ancient  doctrine  of  realism  has 
long  ago  departed  from  philosophy,  and  consequently  ab¬ 
stract  reasoning  has  ceased  to  be  regarded  as  concrete  proof. 
Interest  in  abstract  thought  will  never  cease,  as  the  undying 
interest  in  philosophy  gives  assurance,  and  abstract  thinking 
will  always  have  its  place  in  theology.  But  it  is  no  longer 
taken  for  granted  that  such  thinking  will  yield  definite  proof 
of  concrete  realities;  and  with  this  change  in  presuppositions 
the  ontological  argument  for  the  existence  of  God  has  lost  its 
convincing  force. 

Perhaps  it  may  seem  that  this  is  a  movement  in  the  wrong 
direetion,  and  interest  in  abstract  proof  ought  to  revive. 
There  is  an  old  impression  that  there  is  somehow  an  affinity 
between  abstract  reasoning  and  spiritual  affairs — an  impres- 


THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 


367 


sion  that  has  penetrated  even  into  popular  thought  about 
religion.  But  the  affinity,  such  as  there  is,  is  not  so  essential 
as  to  be  of  permanent  effect.  The  retirement  of  interest  in 
abstract  proofs  is  a  part  of  the  modern  interest  in  facts,  which 
implies  its  own  presuppositions  and  point  of  view.  It  is  a 
right  and  valuable  interest,  and  one  that  will  not  be  super¬ 
seded.  The  question  of  God  is  a  question  of  fact,  or  of 
reality,  and  it  is  not  the  nature  of  a  fact  that  it  can  be  estab¬ 
lished  by  abstract  reasoning.  By  such  means  it  may  be 
shown  to  be  reasonable,  or  even  morally  necessary,  but  not 
by  such  means  can  it  be  proved  to  be  a  fact.  The 
question  of  the  existence  of  the  good  God  is  like  other 
questions  of  fact  in  this  respect — it  is  by  the  testimony  of 
other  facts,  or  realities,  reasonably  interpreted,  that  the 
existence  and  character  of  God  must  be  established.  The 
subject  is  one  for  the  newer  method  to  work  upon,  and  the 
ancient  emphasis  will  never  again  be  placed  upon  the  ab¬ 
stract  arguments. 

The  Christian  doctrine  has  nothing  to  fear  from  this 
shifting  of  interest  from  the  abstract  to  the  concrete.  It  has 
been  helped  by  abstract  reasonings,  and  will  be  helped  by 
them  still,  but  it  was  never  founded  upon  them.  The  Chris¬ 
tian  conception  of  God  was  grounded  in  experience,  and  has 
always  had  its  strength  in  the  region  of  concrete  reality.  The 
doctrine  is  first  a  doctrine  of  life,  and  it  will  be  strengthened, 
not  weakened,  by  the  deepening  of  interest  in  the  field  in 
which  its  greatest  vitality  has  always  been  shown.  For 
confirmation  it  now  looks  not  to  syllogistic  constructions,  and 
not  first  to  argument  at  all,  but  to  the  facts  of  nature  and  life, 
to  the  significance  of  the  universe,  to  rational  meanings,  to 
ethical  relations,  to  spiritual  experiences,  to  a  fair  under¬ 
standing  of  things  that  are. 

The  Teleological  argument  for  the  existence  of  God  brings 
another  illustration  of  the  effect  of  change  in  presuppositions. 
No  confirmation  of  belief  in  God  is  older  or  more  natural  or 
more  impressive  than  that  which  is  discovered  in  adaptations 


368 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  the  seeking  of  ends.  That  end-seeking  is  the  work  of  a 
mind,  no  one  naturally  doubts:  experience  has  laid  firm 
foundations  for  that  conviction.  It  has  always  been  natural 
for  men  to  say  that  if  there  are  unquestionable  adaptations 
and  end-seekings  in  the  order  of  nature  they  were  introduced 
there  by  an  intelligent  and  powerful  mind,  a  creator  who 
understood  his  work.  And  if  beyond  all  special  adaptations 
there  seemed  to  be  discovered  one  great  increasing  purpose 
in  the  world  as  a  whole,  all  the  more  impressive  was  the 
evidence  of  a  designing  mind.  The  Old  Testament  looks 
abroad  in  this  spirit,  though  more  in  adoration  than  in 
argument,  and  thus  the  Psalm  is  sung:  “O  Lord,  how 
manifold  are  thy  works!  in  wisdom  hast  thou  made  them  all.’* 
(Ps.  civ.  24.)  When  the  modern  age  of  investigation  opened, 
innumerable  adaptations  in  the  world  were  noticed,  and  the 
fitness  of  things  to  serve  their  purpose  was  read  as  evidence  of 
God.  Every  period  of  serious  thought  in  Theism  has  turned 
this  reasoning  to  the  account  of  faith,  and  with  good  reason. 
An  argument  so  ready  everywhere,  so  straightforward  in  its 
movement  and  supported  by  so  great  an  array  of  facts,  is  not 
the  work  of  folly.  It  is  of  the  kindred  of  truth,  and  cannot  be 
lost  out  of  use  as  worthless.  There  is  at  least  a  strong  pre¬ 
sumption  in  favour  of  its  being  valid  as  long  as  the  world 
stands. 

But  not  in  any  one  form.  The  argument  makes  use 
of  facts  in  nature  and  life,  many  of  which  are  brought  to  its 
hand  by  Science,  and  it  is  necessary  that  the  facts  be  rightly 
known.  In  order  to  serve  an  argument  from  design,  they 
must  be  correctly  reported,  and  seen  in  their  true  relations  in 
the  order  of  nature:  otherwise  inferences  from  them  will  be 
untrustworthy.  At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
Paley  wrought  out  the  argument  from  design  for  the  existence 
of  God.  He  traced  the  teleological  aspect  of  the  world 
through  many  instances,  and  exhibited  the  purposeful  God 
in  nature  and  life  in  a  manner  exceedingly  impressive.  He 
popularized  the  doctrine,  and  enabled  it  to  serve  as  a  strong 
support  for  faith.  But  his  argument  no  longer  stands 


THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 


369 


in  the  books  on  Theism.  It  has  retired.  A  student  of 
modern  mind,  however  well  convinced  concerning  design, 
will  not  use  Paley’s  proofs  of  it;  and  coincidently  there 
has  come  a  great  loss  of  confidence  in  arguments  from 
design  in  general. 

For  the  change  there  may  be  various  reasons,  but  one 
sufficient  reason  is  that  the  science  of  the  early  nineteenth 
century  has  become  antiquated.  The  facts  are  better  known 
at  present,  and  many  of  them  are  not  as  Paley  supposed. 
Not  only  are  single  facts  differently  reported,  but  his  general 
view  of  the  manner  in  which  facts  in  nature  are  related 
among  themselves  and  bound  into  unity  has  passed  away. 
With  the  knowledge  of  his  time  his  reasoning  was  in  accord, 
but  not  so  well  with  the  knowledge  of  ours.  This  is  reason 
enough  why  his  argument  has  fallen  out  of  vogue:  present 
knowledge  does  not  support  it.  Arguments  that  consist  in 
interpretation  of  facts  must  depend  for  their  validity  upon  the 
correctness  with  which  the  facts  are  known.  If  a  radical 
change  or  a  great  enlargement  of  knowledge  comes,  such 
arguments  must  at  least  be  reconsidered,  and  may  have  to  be 
given  up.  This  is  nothing  to  be  complained  of,  for  it  is  only 
the  common  lot  of  thought  in  an  advancing  world.  “Our 
little  systems  have  their  day,’^  and  their  day  ends  as  soon 
as  larger  knowledge  makes  a  better  day  possible. 

The  Paleyan  construction  of  the  argument  from  design 
has  lapsed  with  the  lapsing  of  the  science  which  it  represented, 
and  a  host  of  men  have  been  ready  to  accept  the  change  as 
the  passing  of  argument  from  design  altogether.  But  such  ’ 
a  reaction  is  excessive.  Teleology  is  not  dead.  If  certain 
adaptations  are  not  as  they  were  thought  to  be,  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  world  is  purposeless.  Instead  of  that,  the 
whole  question  remains,  to  be  judged  on  its  merits.  The 
fact  and  scope  of  purpose  in  the  world  have  not  been  dis¬ 
proved,  but  must  still  be  estimated  in  that  more  recent  light 
which  has  disproved  some  old  opinions.  For  all  that  the 
lapsing  of  the  old  argument  shows,  the  world  may  be  far 
more  purposeful  than  Paley  ever  supposed.  Probably  it 


370 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


will  be  found  that  teleology  is  only  driven  from  smaller  fields 
to  greater  by  the  change.  Certainly  there  is  vast  room  for 
purpose  in  the  universe  to  which  we  now  lift  up  our  eyes. 
But  we  have  to  approach  the  new  field  of  inquiry  in  new 
methods,  and  study  out  the  problem  of  purpose  in  view  of  our 
own  presuppositions,  in  the  world  with  which  we  are  now 
acquainted. 

Of  the  two  other  famous  arguments  for  the  existence  of 
God  similar  things  may  be  said.  Both  make  use  of  essential 
and  permanent  truth,  and  both  use  it  in  the  light  of  presup¬ 
positions  of  thought  that  are  necessarily  passing,  not  perma¬ 
nent.  Both  deal  with  truth  that  concerns  the  relation  between 
God  and  his  creation.  The  Cosmological  argument  infers 
God  as  ground  of  the  existence  of  the  universe  and  cause  of 
its  changes :  the  Moral  or  Anthropological  infers  God  as  the 
Original  of  man  and  the  source  of  morality.  Both  conclusions 
are  true,  and  are  obtainable  by  legitimate  process  in  every 
age.  But  it  is  evident  that  the  form  of  these  arguments  must 
change  if  there  comes  some  decided  change  in  our  knowledge 
of  the  universe  and  its  mode  of  being,  and  in  our  conceptions 
of  the  constitution  and  spiritual  relations  of  man.  Such 
changes  have  come.  The  very  thing  that  has  occurred  in 
the  thinking  of  recent  time  is  a  reconstruction  of  our  ideas 
of  the  universe  and  the  human  race.  The  reconstruction  is 
far  from  complete  as  yet,  and  we  are  not  called  upon  to  deal 
with  it  as  with  a  finished  thing,  but  it  is  well  begun,  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  it  is  plain,  and  it  will  not  be  discontinued.  It  is  in 
the  world  as  now  conceived  that  we  have  to  think  of  the  human 
race  and  the  relation  of  God  to  his  universe.  It  is  in  the 
world  as  now  conceived  that  we  have  to  become  convinced 
that  the  good  God  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  living  God.  Our 
Cosmological  and  Anthropological  arguments — for  we  shall 
have  them,  though  we  shall  not  name  them  so — will  have 
to  take  their  form  from  our  conceptions  of  the  cosmos  and 
the  anthropos,  not  from  those  of  our  fathers.  They  will 
stand  as  part  of  our  interpretation  of  existence  as  it  appears 


THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 


371 


to  US.  They  will  be  constructed,  too,  in  the  more  recent 
method  of  reasoning  on  universal  themes.  We  shall  not 
frame  syllogisms,  so  much  as  seek  meanings.  We  shall 
not  expect  to  make  ourselves  sure  of  God  by  demonstration, 
so  much  as  we  hope  to  understand  that  which  lies  before  us, 
and  discover  him  wherever  he  is  expressed.  Our  reasonings 
will  not  be  altogether  like  those  which  we  inherit,  because  they 
are  our  own,  growths  of  our  own  age,  rooted  in  the  soil  of  our 
own  presuppositions. 

As  to  these  presuppositions  which  newly  condition  all 
thought  concerning  God,  they  lie  in  the  two  great  fields, 
which  by  man  himself  are  bound  together  as  one.  They  lie 
in  the  material  universe  and  in  the  spiritual  universe.  Only 
the  barest  hint  of  them  can  be  given  here,  but  the  hint  may 
not  be  in  vain.  The  universe,  practically  unbounded,  is 
one  vast  system,  interrelated  through  its  whole  extent,  and 
held  in  unity  by  one  operation  and  a  single  method;  the  uni¬ 
verse,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  is  operated  from  within,  by 
forces  in  itself,  rather  than  by  some  power  that  acts  upon  it 
from  beyond  itself;  change  everywhere  is  incessant,  each 
state  unfolding  out  of  that  which  preceded  it,  as  if  the  whole 
were  advancing  in  one  mighty  growth.  As  for  this  human 
race  to  which  we  belong,  it  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  universe, 
for  it  has  grown  up  out  of  the  life  that  is  below  it  on  the  earth; 
its  present  condition  is  the  outgrowth  of  all  its  immeasurable 
past;  it  has  been  very  long  upon  the  earth,  its  higher  powers 
have  begun  to  open  and  are  slowly  opening  still,  and  its 
destiny  lies  ahead ;  it  does  not  understand  itself,  and  yet  is 
dimly  groping  forward.  It  is  in  a  world  thus  conceived  that 
we  are  to  inquire  whether  God  is  real.  We  contemplate  not  a 
late-born  race  planted  from  the  outside  in  a  little  world,  but  an 
ancient  race  that  is  of  one  substance  with  the  universe,  while  its 
true  life  is  in  the  powers  of  the  spirit  that  reach  out  to  that 
which  is  above.  It  is  plain  that  in  such  a  field  of  existence  we 
cannot  think  of  God,  if  he  exists  at  all,  except  as  universal  in 
his  relations.  All  provincialism,  partialism,  specialism,  narrow¬ 
ness,  must  go  out  of  our  thoughts  of  him:  he  must  be  one  God, 


372 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


related  equally  to  all  souls,  and  to  all  existence.  We  seek  to 
know  whether  there  is  evidence  in  the  universal  field  that  the 
one  good  God  is  real.  Can  we  say  that  the  universe  is  the 
creation  and  the  home  of  such  a  God  ?  and  if  we  answer, 
Yes,  on  what  grounds  do  we  venture  the  affirmation? 

If  the  field  of  inquiry  is  of  this  kind,  one  thing  is  certain. 
It  is  by  evidence  rather  than  by  proof  that  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  of  God  will  be  confirmed;  and  the  evidence  will  be 
found  in  large  meanings.  We  shall  not  prove  our  doctrine, 
but  we  may  find  reason  for  being  sure  that  it  is  true;  and  this 
we  shall  find  not  so  much  in  single  facts  or  special  fields  of 
inquiry  as  in  significances  that  appear  in  the  most  meaning¬ 
ful  realms  of  being.  To  speak  of  universal  meanings  may 
perhaps  be  deemed  presumptuous,  for  what  are  we  that  we 
should  talk  of  understanding  what  is  universal  ?  But  we 
may  be  allowed  to  speak  of  large  meanings,  discovered  in  that 
realm  of  existence  where  meaning  goes  deepest;  and  these 
large  meanings  we  may  consult  more  confidently  than  any 
minor  witnesses  to  God.  We  shall  not  do  well  to  attend 
chiefly  to  incidental  proofs  of  him.  Single  facts  and  special 
evidences  may  bear  their  testimony,  but  they  bring  less  than 
we  seek.  We  are  seeking  not  so  much  for  evidences  as  for 
evidence,  universally  and  forever  valid;  and  to  the  broadest 
and  most  significant  fields  of  existence  we  must  go  to  find  it. 
The  most  convincing  evidence  is  that  of  great  and  indis¬ 
pensable  meaning.  If  a  truth  fits  into  the  frame  of  truth, 
it  cannot  be  removed:  if  it  is  the  keystone  of  the  arch  of 
truth,  it  will  remain  forever.  If  we  find  that  God  is  the  neces¬ 
sary  counterpart  of  all  that  we  know  to  be  most  real,  we 
shall  count  him  real.  And  we  need  not  fear  that  this  counsel 
to  explore  large  meanings  will  lead  us  out  into  some  wilder¬ 
ness  of  universality,  where  the  soul  cannot  be  at  home.  What 
is  great  in  the  universe  is  great  in  the  soul,  and  that  which  is 
great  with  God  is  great  with  man.  Large  meanings  are  mean¬ 
ings  that  the  soul  can  read.  This  is  the  glory  and  wonder  of 
man  the  earth-born,  that  the  child  of  time  can  read  in  the 
light  of  eternity.  So  we  turn  to  the  large  meanings,  and 


THE  QUESTION  AND  THE  EVIDENCE 


373 


seek  by  interpretation  of  existence  in  its  highest  significance 
to  learn  whether  God  is  there. 

The  great  meanings  are  only  two:  a  rational  meaning  and 
a  spiritual  meaning.  We  are  acquainted  with  these  two 
aspects  of  existence,  and  in  the  significance  of  existence  from 
these  two  points  of  view  we  find  the  supreme  evidence  of  the 
reality  of  God.  It  is  true  that  these  two  terms  are  not  free 
from  ambiguity,  and  yet  the  sense  in  which  they  are  employed 
for  the  present  purpose  can  be  made  sufficiently  plain.  It  is 
a  most  interesting  and  suggestive  fact  that  there  is  no  separate 
line  of  physical  evidence  for  the  existence  of  God.  Innumer¬ 
able  facts  in  the  material  universe  bear  their  testimony  to  him, 
but  all  consideration  of  signs  of  God  in  the  material  order 
falls  at  once  under  one  or  both  of  the  other  heads :  it  cannot 
be  kept  separate.  It  is  the  rationality  of  the  material  order, 
or  else  the  spirituality  of  its  significance,  that  we  find  ourselves 
considering,  whenever  we  trace  God  in  the  physical  universe. 
This  is  a  true  sign  of  the  greatness  and  universality  of  the 
higher  sense  in  all  existence.  So  we  turn  to  the  rational 
and  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  life  and  the  world,  asking 
what  we  can  learn  in  these  quarters  about  God;  and  we 
shall  find  that  each  field  in  its  own  manner  yields  impres¬ 
sive  and  convincing  evidence  in  support  of  the  Christian 
doctrine. 

It  is  plain  that  we  are  entering  upon  a  field  of  evidence  that 
can  never  be  fully  explored.  No  age  or  generation  can  have 
command  of  the  knowledge  that  would  be  required  to  com¬ 
plete  the  inquiry.  If  life  and  the  world  do  really  bear  the 
testimony  to  God  that  we  claim  for  them,  additional  confirma¬ 
tions  of  the  claim  will  always  be  coming  in :  if  not,  the  deepen¬ 
ing  spiritual  poverty  of  life  will  be  an  ever-strengthening 
refutation.  There  is  no  hope  of  saying  on  these  pages  all 
that  ought  to  be  said  in  the  present  light  by  way  of  evidence 
for  the  Christian  view  of  God.  It  is  intended  only  to  indicate 
what  evidence  there  is  in  the  great  meanings,  in  the  fields 
where  evidence  is  most  real  and  convincing.  It  will  be 
enough  if  it  is  shown  that  the  most  fundamental  qualities  of 


374 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


existence  point  surely  to  the  reality  of  such  a  God  as  Jesus 
teaches  us  to  trust. 

There  is  a  widespread  impression  that  the  present  condi¬ 
tions  of  knowledge  are  unfavourable  to  the  obtaining  of  good 
evidence  of  the  reality  of  God.  The  ancient  arguments  for 
his  existence  are  more  or  less  discredited,  it  is  agreed  that 
demonstration  of  God  is  impossible,  and  it  is  claimed  that  the 
new  presuppositions  in  the  general  thought  leave  no  place  for 
such  a  Being.  Some  doubt,  and  some  deny,  that  the  modern 
view  of  the  world  allows  belief  in  God.  Meanwhile  the  modes 
of  religion  have  so  changed  as  to  make  many  suspect  that 
religion  itself  is  destined  to  leave  the  field.  Moral  difficulties 
in  actual  life,  now  clearly  noticed  and  keenly  felt,  are  often 
supposed  to  render  Christian  Theism,  the  doctrine  of  the 
good  Father,  hopeless.  It  may  be  possible,  many  think,  to 
construct  a  beautiful  idea  of  God,  inspired  by  the  best  that  we 
know,  but  there  was  never  a  time  when  it  was  so  impossible 
to  affirm  that  the  lovely  picture  is  a  true  one.  Fancy  may 
worship  it,  but  facts  condemn  it. 

But  the  case  is  not  thus  hopeless.  It  is  very  true  that 
belief  in  God  has  its  difficulties  peculiar  to  the  present  age, 
but  this  is  not  the  first  time  that  such  an  experience  has 
befallen  it.  It  is  true  also  that  the  vastness  of  the  new  con¬ 
ceptions  involves  difficulties  suddenly  brought  on  and  new  in 
kind.  But  it  is  not  true  that  modern  knowledge  deprives  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  its  opportunity  of  evidence  concerning 
God.  Conditions  are  not  such  as  to  drive  Christian  Theism 
from  the  field,  or  to  shadow  the  central  Christian  doctrine 
with  doubt.  Are  we  told  that  the  type  of  satisfactory  evidence 
has  changed  ?  Most  willingly  do  we  cease  to  rely  upon  evi¬ 
dence  that  does  not  correspond  to  present  knowledge,  but  in 
turn  we  call  upon  all  students  of  the  subject  to  attend  to  the 
evidence  that  does  correspond  to  present  knowledge.  The 
truth  is  that  there  has  never  been  a  time  when  a  simple  and 
sufficient  confirmation  of  belief  in  the  living  and  good  God 
could  be  better  obtained  than  now.  The  large  realities  that 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


375 


tell  of  such  a  God  are  the  very  ones  that  stand  clearest  and 
firmest  in  the  modern  light,  and  the  special  difficulties  that 
come  with  modern  thought  are  destined  to  be  relieved  in  the 
further  movement  of  the  thought  that  has  encountered  them. 
So  we  look  out  into  the  world  and  life,  well  assured  that  we 
cannot  look  thither  with  right  vision  without  beholding  God. 

Although  the  specialty  of  the  Christian  doctrine  lies  in  the 
spiritual  and  moral  sphere,  it  is  necessary  to  look  first  at 
the  evidence  that  arises  from  the  facts  of  rational  existence. 

2.  EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 

The  largest  is  the  simplest,  and  the  argument  from  the 
rational  for  the  realit}  of  God,  if  it  may  be  called  an  argu¬ 
ment,  is  a  very  simple  one.  From  a  rational  humanity  and 
a  rational  universe,  constituting  one  rational  system,  we  infer 
a  rational  God.  No  other  inference  is  justified  by  the  facts, 
and  we  should  stand  condemned  by  the  facts  if  we  did  not 
draw  this  inference;  for  of  so  rational  a  system  the  existence 
of  a  rational  God  is  the  only  rational  explanation.  How  true 
this  simple  statement  is  the  present  chapter  is  intended  to 
show. 

The  first  requirement  upon  one  who  would  unfold  this 
statement  is  that  he  make  plain  what  is  meant  by  rational. 
The  word  stands  for  a  quality  that  belongs  to  normal  intellec¬ 
tual  operations.  All  thoughtful  men  have  some  good  impres¬ 
sion  of  its  nature,  and  yet  to  point  out  its  differentiating  quality 
may  not  be  easy.  Analytical  definitions  of  it  may  differ,  but 
there  is  a  practical  definition  ready  to  our  hand  that  may 
serve  a  better  purpose  than  a  more  philosophical  one.  At 
least  it  offers  the  best  starting-point.  If  we  are  to  define  the 
rational  we  must  define  it  as  it  appears  where  we  find  it;  and 
we  find  it  where  at  least  we  know  it  on  the  practical  side. 
The  rational  we  discover  in  ourselves.  It  is  the  normal 
method  of  humanity.  Though  we  were  to  enumerate  its 
processes,  this  reference  to  its  home  in  ourselves  tells  us  more 


376 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


about  it  than  would  our  specifications.  This  mental  method 
exists  in  all  men.  It  exists  in  all  degrees  of  fulness  and 
power,  but  no  sane  human  being  is  without  it.  In  partial 
degree  it  exists  in  the  animal  world  below  the  grade  of  man. 
All  mind  is  rational,  and  rudimental  mind  is  rudimentally 
rational.  Yet  though  it  is  present  in  lower  life,  rationality 
is  rightly  regarded  as  the  distinctive  trait  and  quality  of  man. 
It  is  not  merely  the  reasoning  process  so  called:  it  includes 
the  entire  normal  method  and  process  of  the  human  mind. 
In  man  the  rational  element  becomes  conscious  and  organized : 
it  is  adequate  to  the  needs  and  undertakings  of  human  life: 
it  trains  itself,  and  sets  itself  to  use:  in  the  highest  of  men  it  is 
brought  by  experience  to  systematic  method  and  high  effi¬ 
ciency.  Thus  it  is  in  ourselves  and  our  kind  that  we  become 
acquainted  with  the  rational.  Self-knowledge  exhibits  it  to 
us.  The  rational  is  the  self-like,  the  man-like. 

As  soon  as  the  rational  has  thus  been  defined  as  the  human, 
it  may  be  objected  that  our  argument  concerning  God  takes 
its  start  from  man,  and  we  are  expressly  preparing  to  present 
the  divine  in  terms  of  the  human.  To  this  the  answer  is  that 
of  course  it  is  true.  The  argument  does  start  from  man, 
as  it  ought.  Objection  to  this  is  sometimes  made,  as  if  the 
process  which  it  introduces  must  be  a  subjective  process, 
bound  to  end  in  construcing  a  doctrine  of  God  formed  on 
human  models,  and  therefore  untrustworthy.  But  the 
objection  misconceives  the  case.  If  we  are  to  search  for  truth 
about  God,  we  ought  to  start  from  man.  In  all  existence 
that  is  known  to  us  the  personal  human  being  is  the  highest 
form  of  being  that  we  discover,  and  the  rational  nature  is  the 
highest  nature  that  we  have  ever  met.  From  this  highest 
point  in  the  world  of  human  experience  we  certainly  ought  to 
set  out,  if  we  propose  either  to  interpret  what  is  below  it  or 
to  explore  what  is  above  it.  Any  evidence  concerning  God 
that  does  not  start  from  man  is  scarcely  more  than  prepara¬ 
tory  to  that  which  does,  and  finds  its  true  place  and  meaning 
only  within  the  field  of  this  more  direct  and  valid  operation. 
Instead  of  apologizing  for  setting  out  from  man  and  his 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


377 


rational  life  when  we  wish  to  rise  to  knowledge  of  God  or 
show  that  he  is  real,  it  is  right  to  claim  that  this  is  the  only 
right  and  hopeful  way.  So  great  a  fact  as  the  rational  nature 
in  mankind  is  the  one  from  which  to  make  our  beginning  when 
we  seek  to  know  that  which  is  above  mankind. 

The  practical  standing  of  the  rational  is  beyond  question. 
All  men  trust  it.  They  assume  its  validity  as  a  guide  to 
reality  outside  themselves.  Even  animals  do  the  same,  so 
far  as  they  act  upon  reasons.  They  do  not  know  that  they 
are  assuming  the  validity  of  the  rational  process,  but  they  are, 
whenever  they  act  upon  mental  suggestions,  however  rudi¬ 
mentary.  The  farthest  intellectual  advance  of  humanity  is 
made  by  acting  upon  the  same  assumption.  Without  claim¬ 
ing  that  the  rational  element  in  our  personal  case  or  anywhere 
else  among  men  is  perfect,  still  we  always  treat  it  as  a  trust¬ 
worthy  quality  of  mankind,  the  operation  of  which  will  lead 
to  sound  results.  In  fact  we  cannot  do  otherwise  than  trust 
it.  As  we  are  compelled  to  trust  our  sight  and  hearing 
though  we  know  that  they  lack  something  of  perfection,  so 
we  are  compelled  to  trust  our  rational  powers  though  we  are 
aware  of  their  defects.  The  activities  of  life  would  cease  if 
we  did  not.  But  the  point  is  not  that  we  are  compelled  to 
trust  our  rational  powers:  it  is  that  they  are  trustworthy. 
We  have  reasonable  confidence  in  them  as  leading  us  aright. 
A  trustworthy  faculty  or  power  is  one  that  corresponds  to  that 
upon  which  it  has  to  act.  It  is  capable  of  discerning  reality 
and  acting  upon  it:  it  perceives  that  which  is,  and  deals  with 
it  according  to  its  nature.  This  is  what  we  mean  when  we 
call  our  bodily  senses  trustworthy:  we  can  count  upon  them 
to  perceive  things  as  they  are,  at  least  so  far  as  to  make  them 
generally  safe  guides  for  us  to  follow.  In  the  same  manner 
our  rational  powers  are  trustworthy:  they  take  hold  of 
reality  in  objects  with  which  they  have  to  do.  That  it  is  the 
nature  of  our  rational  powers  to  lead  us  to  truth  no  sane 
mind  thinks  of  doubting,  for  of  this  the  long  and  fruitful 
history  of  the  mind  is  evidence  enough.  Despite  all  human 
imperfection,  it  is  ages  too  late  for  us  to  need  to  argue  that 


378 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


humanity  is  justified  in  trusting  its  own  rationality  to  lead 
it  into  truth. 

From  this  universal,  ever-used,  ever-trusted  human  faeulty 
we  take  our  start  when  we  search  for  evidence  of  God. 
Indeed  we  might  as  well  say  that  we  take  our  start  from 
human  nature.  The  rational  powers,  organized  in  self- 
consciousness  and  directed  according  to  their  nature,  constitute 
the  very  substance  of  the  human;  so  that  we  are  not  proceeding 
from  some  minor  part  or  incident  of  humanity,  but  from 
humanity  itself.  Beginning  at  man,  we  set  forth  to  find 
God. 

We  have  first  to  do  with  origins.  Whence  came  the 
rational  in  man?  It  is  the  wise  old  way  in  religion  to  refer 
it  back  to  God  the  creator.  That  way  is  still  as  wise  and 
right  as  ever,  and  to  it  we  shall  come;  but  at  present  we  are 
inquiring  about  God,  not  making  affirmations  as  to  what  he 
has  done.  Besides,  the  question  that  is  now  to  be  considered 
relates  not  so  much  to  original  causation  as  to  method  of  de¬ 
velopment.  By  our  question  we  mean.  By  what  kind  of 
process  did  man  come  to  be  the  rational  being  that  he  is  ? 
How  did  his  rationality  come  to  pass  ? 

We  used  to  answer  promptly  that  the  rational  in  human 
kind  was  created  by  God,  at  a  stroke.  God  said,  “Let  us 
make  man,”  and  man  was  made,  with  the  rational  powers 
that  he  possesses  all  complete;  or  else,  as  in  the  other  narra¬ 
tive,  into  a  lifeless  body  formed  from  the  dust  of  the  ground 
God  breathed  the  breath  of  life,  so  that  man  became  a  living 
soul  (Gen.  i.  26-27;  ii.  7).  The  rational  nature  of  man  had 
thus  an  instantaneous  beginning:  out  of  non-existence  it 
sprang  up  at  once  through  the  act  of  God.  A  momentary 
event  made  man  a  rational  being,  where  there  was  no  being 
at  all  before.  But  later  knowledge  has  displaced  this  picture 
of  the  human  beginning,  and  set  in  its  place  another  far  more 
wonderful.  The  rational  nature  of  man  was  not  instanta¬ 
neously  created :  it  was  developed  in  the  developing  of  the 
world.  Instead  of  standing  out  as  a  solitary  thing  in  sharp 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


379 


contrast  with  other  existence,  it  appears  as  a  part  of  a  larger 
whole,  developed,  trained,  supported,  by  the  world,  or  rather 
by  the  universe,  in  which  it  lives. 

The  rational  quality  is  a  quality  or  function  of  life.  The 
human  is  the  highest  instance  of  the  living  that  this  world 
contains,  and  it  is  as  a  living  being  that  man  is  rational.  He 
is  not  the  only  living  being,  or  the  only  rational  being,  in  the 
world,  though  he  is  the  most  rational.  Life  is  inconceivably 
ancient,  and  has  borne  innumerable  forms,  but  all  life  is  one. 
It  has  one  essential  nature,  and  tends  to  one  character.  Life 
tends  to  rationality.  Not  that  all  life  is  rational  in  the 
human  manner,  or  will  ever  become  so,  but  life  is  naturally  a 
basis  for  rationality,  and  life  as  life  has  the  rational  quality 
for  its  proper  crown.  When  life  first  came  into  existence  the 
seed  of  the  harvest  of  rationality  was  already  sown.  From 
that  beginning  it  was  natural  that  this  end  should  be  reached. 

When  life  began  to  exist  in  this  world  we  do  not  know, 
nor  do  we  know  the  manner  of  its  origin.  Neither  do  we 
know  its  inner  nature;  but  we  do  know  in  some  measure  how 
it  works  and  to  what  it  tends.  It  tends  at  once  to  sensibility. 
Probably  the  very  beginning  of  life  was  the  beginning  of 
sensation.  If  we  define  life  as  correlation  of  what  is  within 
with  what  is  without,  or  in  any  other  reasonable  way,  our 
definition  will  imply  such  dependence  of  the  living  upon  the 
external  world  as  to  require  sensation  or  something  akin 
thereto,  to  constitute  the  working  connection  between  the  two 
correlated  elements.  Life  would  naturally  need  to  possess 
sensation,  as  the  means  of  its  appropriating  that  upon  which 
it  depends.  Even  the  lowliest  life  must  have  this  need.  By 
sensation  we  human  beings  mean  so  much,  because  of  our 
rich  group  of  senses,  that  we  can  scarcely  do  justice  in  our 
thoughts  to  the  lowest  perceptions  that  can  bear  the  name; 
yet  we  know  that  these  are  real,  and  are  as  serviceable  to 
lower  life  in  proportion  to  its  needs  as  ours  to  us.  It  would 
seem  that  the  essential  functions  of  life  necessarily  imply  the 
presence  of  sensation;  and  certainly  all  development  of  life 
implies  the  development  of  sensation  to  higher  forms, 


380 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Sensation  is  a  most  suggestive  thing,  for  it  brings  experience 
of  pleasure  and  pain.  It  cannot  proceed  without  introducing 
these  to  the  living  subject.  All  life  must  know  something  of 
them.  Probably  the  flower  must  in  some  manner  feel  the 
dew  on  its  petals  by  night,  and  the  enlivening  touch  of  the  sun 
by  day,  and  have  something  akin  to  pleasure  in  the  whole¬ 
some  gifts  that  they  bring.  We  may  fairly  suspect  that 
the  tree  suffers  when  it  is  girdled  and  the  healthful  flow  of  its 
sap  is  stopped  and  fatal  disease  results.  As  soon  as  we 
pass  from  vegetable  life  to  animal,  the  presence  of  pleasure 
and  pain  in  consequence  of  sensation  is  too  manifest  to  need 
proof,  or  even  illustration.  All  animate  existence  has  perpet¬ 
ual  sensation,  with  the  inevitable  results.  All  life,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  must  be  nourished,  and  there  is  pleasure  in  receiving  the 
benefit  of  nourishment,  and  pain  in  the  lack  of  it.  Even  in 
the  lowest  life  this  must  be  true.  And  so  on — all  experience 
of  life  involves  sensation,  and  sensation  renders  it  certain  that 
life  will  always  have  pain  and  pleasure  for  its  characteristics, 
proportioned  in  degree  to  its  own  intensity. 

But  pleasure  and  pain,  existing  as  characteristics  of  life, 
are  enough  to  render  life  rational.  Sensation,  with  the  sensa¬ 
tions  pleasant  and  unpleasant  that  come  on,  suffices  to  intro¬ 
duce  rationality  as  an  element  in  the  living  being.  For 
whatever  is  conscious  of  good  and  bad  sensations  is  able  to 
compare  them — or  they  would  not  be  known  as  good  or  bad 
at  all — and  to  have  impressions  as  to  their  relative  desirable¬ 
ness,  and  to  be  led  to  act  in  view  of  the  comparison  thus 
made.  Not  only  is  this  possible,  it  is  sure  to  occur.  Pain  and 
pleasure  do  not  long  exist  uncompared.  Judgment  between 
them  arises,  and  choice  between  them  follows,  and  effort  to 
obtain  what  is  chosen  is  the  result.  Life  sends  tendrils 
toward  the  light,  and  roots  toward  the  water.  Life  sends 
animals  seeking  food  and  drink.  Life  compels  man  to  judge 
what  he  wants  most,  and  impels  him  to  obtain  it.  All  this  is 
rational,  in  higher  degree  or  lower.  The  rationality  that  sends 
the  root  down  for  water  is  rationality  of  low  degree;  but  it  is 
the  result  of  sensation  and  of  want,  and  is  of  the  same  kind 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


381 


at  heart  with  the  rationality  that  makes  a  young  man  seek 
an  education  because  he  feels  his  ignorance  and  unreadiness 
for  the  coming  years.  It  is  of  the  very  nature  of  life  to  put 
forth  rational  endeavour. 

To  this  it  is  no  objection  that  so  much  of  the  rationality  is 
only  in  its  rudiments.  Of  course  it  is  not  meant  that  all 
living  beings  are  philosophers.  All  degrees  of  rationality 
must  be  counted  upon,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest.  We 
have  the  habit  of  regarding  rationality  as  confined  to  man,  and 
drawing  a  deep  distinction  between  it  and  instinct,  attributed 
to  all  lower  animals.  Though  we  have  learned  that  the  dis¬ 
tinction  will  not  hold,  the  effect  of  it  still  remains  with  us. 
But  instinct  also  is  a  rational  thing.  Instinct  had  rudimen¬ 
tary  reason  for  its  starting-point,  but,  reason  not  having  de¬ 
veloped  beyond  a  certain  point,  the  advantageous  results  of 
certain  reasonable  action  became  solidified  into  heredity. 
The  existence  of  such  results  from  rudimentary  reasoning 
are  just  as  truly  parts  of  a  reasonable  world  as  are  the  rational 
acts  of  men.  The  rational  element  in  life  has  not  been 
everywhere  developed;  in  some  regions  its  progress  seems  to 
have  ceased,  and  in  some  it  may  have  retrograded;  only  in 
the  human  field  has  it  attained  to  the  human  quality,  and  even 
here  it  is  incomplete.  Nevertheless  it  is  the  nature  of  life 
with  its  sensations  to  become  a  rational  experience,  and  this 
nature  has  been  realized  more  or  less  in  all  living  beings,  and 
most  in  man. 

In  this  it  is  implied  that  the  experience  of  life  serves  for  the 
training  of  rationality.  Life  has  its  organism,  which  is  neces¬ 
sarily  used  for  acting  out  the  choices  that  result  from  percep¬ 
tion  and  judgment.  Like  any  other  power,  the  rational 
power  is  trained  through  its  activities.  As  organisms  grow 
higher  and  more  largely  effective,  opportunity  for  training  in 
rationality  grows  more  abundant.  Already,  before  life  had 
reached  the  grade  of  the  human,  its  rational  powers  were  thus 
trained  by  use,  and  all  such  reason  as  belongs  to  lower  life 
had  been  developed.  The  movement  was  cumulative.  The 
well-grown  mind  grows  most  normally.  When  mind  and 


382 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


organism  and  experience  all  were  human,  life  trained  ration¬ 
ality  to  new  grades,  and  for  the  first  time  revealed  its  higher 
quality.  The  human  reason  is  the  normal  fruit  of  the  tree 
of  universal  life. 

Thus  the  realm  of  life,  in  which  we  are  looking  for  evi¬ 
dence  of  God,  is  a  realm  of  rational  powers  in  actual 
operation;  not  of  promise  but  of  genuine  performance,  from 
the  very  beginning  of  life  till  now.  Mind  was  born  when 
life  was  born,  though  both  were  in  feeblest  infancy,  and  the 
entire  career  of  life  has  meant  training,  development,  and 
use  for  the  powers  of  mind.  This  is  the  region  concerning 
which  we  are  inquiring  whether  it  is  expressive  of  a  rational 
mind  above  itself.  Here  at  any  rate  are  rational  powers 
produced.  From  some  source  the  living  world  has  been 
sown  full  of  the  seeds  of  reason;  and  surely  a  world  so  full 
of  rationality  must  be  the  expression  of  a  mind  to  which  its 
own  best  quality  is  akin.  The  rationality  of  life  is  undying 
evidence  of  the  rationality  of  God. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  the  matter,  for  we  have  still 
to  consider  that  world,  or  universe,  in  which  life  was  produced 
and  in  which  it  has  been  trained.  Life  with  its  inherent 
rationality  has  had  its  quality  developed  under  the  influence 
of  the  universe  in  which  it  was  placed.  This  universe  bears, 
as  truly  as  life  itself,  the  marks  of  rationality.  It  is  com¬ 
mon  to  speak  of  man  as  mind  and  the  universe  as  matter,  to 
locate  the  rational  in  the  human  and  exclude  from  that  cate¬ 
gory  the  mass  of  non-human  existence.  But  when  we  con¬ 
sider  the  relation  of  the  universe  to  the  rational  in  man,  we 
may  be  able  to  set  this  manner  of  thinking  aside,  in  favour 
of  a  truer  one.  The  universe  is  not  a  reasoner,  but  in  its 
own  differing  way  it  has  the  rational  quality  bound  in  as  a 
vital  element  in  its  being. 

In  tracing  the  rational  in  that  universe  which  is  the  home 
of  life  we  must  begin  far  back,  and  observe  that  life  itself  ap¬ 
pears  to  be  a  product  of  the  universal  order.  Life  was  the 
germ  of  rationality,  and  the  universe  was  one  in  which  this 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


383 


wonderful  germ  could  be  brought  forth.  There  is  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  when  life  first  appeared  it  was  created  by 
an  act  that  did  not  belong  to  the  order  of  the  world.  The  only 
fact  that  may  seem  to  require  such  a  belief  is  that  we  cannot 
understand  or  conceive  how  so  marvellous  a  thing  as  life,  so 
unlike  all  that  was  before  it,  could  possibly  be  brought  forth 
by  any  process  whatever.  The  introduction  of  life  was  a 
work  that  required  a  God.  So  it  was;  it  required  a  God,  and 
a  living  God;  but  what  if  the  God  was  already  in  the  order? 
Our  alarm  at  the  suggestion  that  life  might  have  been  pro¬ 
duced  without  an  exceptional  creative  act  was  natural,  but 
only  because  we  were  accustomed  to  think  of  God  as  striking 
through  the  order  from  above  when  great  work  was  to  be 
done,  and  not  as  ‘'working  hitherto”  in  and  through  the 
order  itself.  But  when  we  look  for  actual  reasons,  there  is 
no  constraining  reason  against  the  idea  that  life  blossomed 
in  due  time  upon  the  ancient  stock  of  the  universe.  That  the 
process  is  too  wonderful  for  us  is  nothing  against  it,  but  rather 
in  its  favour.  Probably  it  is  true  that  the  order  of  the 
world  brought  forth  life  when  the  time  had  come.  Prob¬ 
ably  the  stock  of  the  universe  is  not  rightly  appreciated 
until  it  is  regarded  as  a  stock  upon  which  this  flower  might 
bloom. 

If  we  have  looked  upon  this  as  a  process  inferior  and  un¬ 
divine,  we  have  misjudged  it.  The  glory  of  the  significance 
of  life  cannot  be  overestimated.  The  first  movement  of  life 
was  the  presage  of  rationality,  the  promise  of  man,  and  the 
pledge  of  spiritual  destiny,  and  the  coming  of  life  brought 
the  due  significance  to  the  world  into  which  it  came.  If  the 
universe  could  bring  it  forth — that  is,  if  it  was  a  universe  in 
whose  career  there  should  come  a  crisis  out  of  which  life 
was  born — then  it  can  be  understood  and  estimated  only  in 
the  light  of  this  amazing  fact.  Only  from  a  stock  of  rational 
existence  could  the  flower  of  rational  promise  open.  It  is 
quite  right  to  say  that  life,  so  rational  a  thing,  could  not  come 
forth  from  the  universe  if  the  universe  were  irrational.  The 
common  saying  that  all  the  living  comes  from  the  living  is 


384 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


right  and  true.  But  if  life  was  born  of  the  universe,  life  was 
somehow  already  in  the  universe  or  working  through  it;  and 
if  life  was  so  rational  a  thing,  pledge  of  reason  and  all  its 
high  possibilities,  the  life  that  was  working  in  the  universe  was 
of  high  rational  quality.  A  rational  system  the  universe 
must  have  been,  if  life  and  rationality  were  outcomes  of  its 
movement.  In  this  doctrine  there  is  no  bringing  of  life 
down  to  the  grade  and  quality  of  a  brute  universe:  there  is 
bringing  of  the  universe  up  to  the  grade  of  a  system  through 
which  life,  reason  and  the  spirit  could  be  brought  forth. 

When  man  had  come,  his  powers  were  such  as  to  make  of 
him  a  rational  observer,  able  to  take  note  of  things  about  him 
and  to  read  their  meaning.  Observation  and  interpretation 
were  crude  processes,  and  much  that  was  noticed  was  inevi¬ 
tably  misjudged.  But  acceleration  of  growth  in  knowledge 
and  judgment  went  on  apace,  and  human  powers  more  and 
more  took  in  and  utilized  the  facts  that  were  observable. 
This  advancing  process  has  established  beyond  the  possibility 
of  doubt  the  common  rationality  of  man  and  the  universe  in 
which  he  dwells.  Man  has  proved  himself  a  rational  being, 
and  the  universe  has  proved  itself  a  rational  universe,  one  as 
truly  as  the  other. 

The  common  rationality  of  man  and  the  universe  is  suffi¬ 
ciently  shown  by  the  fact  that  man  finds  the  universe  intelligi¬ 
ble.  The  world  is  a  book,  and  man  is  the  reader.  Read  it 
he  can,  and  does.  He  has  full  confidence  that  he  could  read 
it  all  if  it  were  all  laid  open  before  him.  He  has  often  misread, 
partly  because  his  powers  were  insufficiently  developed,  and 
partly  because  he  knew  too  little  to  understand  his  book. 
His  eager  desire  to  know  cannot  wait  either  for  training  ade¬ 
quate  to  the  task  or  for  the  opening  of  facts  enough  to  render 
judgment  sure.  It  is  by  reading  that  man  learns  to  read. 
It  is  the  swift  rushing  on  to  know  that  trains  the  powers  and 
discovers  facts  that  will  rectify  premature  judgment.  That 
he  will  not  find  facts  if  he  seeks  for  them,  or  that  what  he 
finds  will  not  be  rational,  he  never  imagines.  The  book  is 
open,  and  sure  to  be  still  wider  open,  and  the  reader  is  intent 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


385 


upon  his  reading.  The  rational  within  meets  the  rational 
without,  and  recognizes  it,  and  cannot  rest  without  laying 
hands  upon  it.  The  world  is  so  like  man  that  man  can  lay 
upon  it  the  intelligent  grasp  of  his  rational  understanding. 

Confirmatory  of  the  common  rationality  of  the  world  and 
man  is  the  fact  that  the  surrounding  world,  or  universe,  has 
always  been,  and  still  is,  the  educator  of  the  rational  humanity. 
Powers  are  developed  within,  but  educated  from  without. 
We  have  said  elsewhere  that  a  child  would  never  become  a 
genuine  person  if  he  were  not  in  social  contact  with  other 
persons.  In  like  manner  we  may  doubt  whether  the  race 
would  have  been  a  rational  race  if  it  had  not  been  living  in  a 
rational  world.  Development  comes  by  response  of  the  inner 
to  the  outer.  Response  to  a  rational  environment  has 
trained  human  life  to  its  normal  rationality.  Living  in  an 
intelligible  world  has  developed  observation,  judgment  and 
constructive  interpretation.  Living  in  an  orderly  world  has 
trained  the  human  mind  to  orderliness  in  thought.  Living  in 
a  world  that  calls  for  reason  in  conduct  builds  up  reason  in  the 
mind.  The  surrounding  world  has  always  trained  life  in  this 
manner,  and  man  most  of  all.  That  means  that  it  is  full  of 
the  rational  quality. 

The  amount  of  reason  legible  to  man  in  the  universe  is 
so  great  as  to  be  a  theme  of  perpetual  wonder.  It  is  found  in 
the  ordinary  matters  that  lie  open  for  all  to  see:  it  is  found 
equally  in  the  immeasurably  great,  and  not  less  in  the  incon¬ 
ceivably  small.  The  common  world  shows  it,  the  telescope 
reveals  it,  and  the  microscope  opens  views  of  it  perhaps  the 
most  marvellous  of  all.  The  latest  glimpses  into  the  infinites¬ 
imal  discover  there  a  fulness  of  rational  meaning  so  dispro¬ 
portionate  to  the  dimensions  of  the  field  as  to  bring  over¬ 
whelming  surprise.  Theories,  like  the  atomic  theory,  have 
been  formed  for  interpretation,  tracing  one  organizing  idea 
through  infinitesimal  and  infinite;  then  new  facts  are  dis¬ 
covered  that  discredit  the  theories  and  suggest  some  other 
organizing  idea  and  method.  But  it  is  always  an  idea  that  is 
posited  there.  The  whole  is  known  to  be  a  system,  and  a 


386 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


rational  system — for  there  is  no  system  that  is  not  rational. 
The  reign  of  the  rational  is  always  assumed  to  be  co-extensive 
with  the  universe.  This  assumption  can  never  be  verified  by 
exhaustive  examination;  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  exhaustive 
examination  would  render  the  scientific  mind  more  certain 
than  it  now  is  that  the  entire  universe  is  bound  together  by  a 
rational  quality  which  it  possesses  in  common  with  us  men. 
One  who  does  not  believe  in  God  assumes  the  rational  char¬ 
acter  of  existing  things  as  readily  as  a  Christian. 

It  is  worth  while  to  look  at  some  most  familiar  facts  that 
show  how  largely  and  efficiently  the  universe  does  the  work 
of  an  intellectual  system.  Science,  Philosophy,  Poetry  and 
Art  exist  because  man  has  the  powers  that  he  has,  but  equally 
because  the  surrounding  universe  is  one  vast  storehouse  of 
material  for  science,  philosophy,  poetry  and  art.  Each  of 
these  four  is  a  separate  evidence  of  the  intellectual  or  rational 
character  of  the  existing  universe.  Each  of  them  is  stronger 
proof  than  any  constructed  argument  could  be,  of  that 
quality  which  bears  witness  to  God. 

In  the  universe  about  us  there  exists  that  rational  order 
which  renders  Science  possible.  Surrounding  facts  are  ob¬ 
servable  by  human  powers,  estimable  by  human  judgment, 
and  amenable  to  scientific  treatment.  When  they  have  been 
observed  and  weighed,  that  is  not  the  end,  for  facts  prove  to 
have  a  method  in  them.  They  are  not  only  discoverable,  but 
classifiable.  By  inward  affinities  they  fall  into  groups,  which 
prove  to  be  systems.  Facts  in  animal  life  or  the  life  of  plants, 
for  example,  have  an  internal  unity  that  man  discovers  but 
did  not  invent.  This  responsiveness  of  facts  to  human 
reason  was  unsuspected,  of  course,  when  the  study  of  nature 
was  begun,  but  it  was  there  in  the  facts,  and  men  could  not 
long  study  them  without  finding  it.  Because  facts  of  various 
kinds  fall  into  groups  of  internal  solidarity,  the  universe, 
examined,  yields  sciences.  Its  broad  reasonableness  renders 
science  possible,  and  science  results  in  sciences  when  the 
field  is  divided  into  its  natural  parts.  The  world  is  found  in 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


387 


itself  capable  of  receiving  true  scientific  analysis  and  classifi¬ 
cation.  It  is  a  systematic  world. 

This  systematic  or  scientific  quality  extends  wherever 
observation  reaches,  and  no  one  doubts  that  it  is  universal. 
All  facts  that  are  contemporaneous  with  one  another  have  it, 
and,  what  is  quite  as  impressive,  the  same  quality  sweeps  also 
through  time  as  well  as  space.  Facts  follow  one  another  in  a 
rational  order,  from  the  first,  if  there  be  a  first,  to  the  last, 
if  there  be  a  last.  There  is  orderly  movement  as  well  as 
orderly  grouping.  Out  of  one  state  the  next  unfolds,  on 
intelligible  principles.  This,  long  known  as  the  manner  in 
which  flowers  grow  in  the  garden,  is  now  perceived  to  be  the 
way  in  which  all  things  have  their  being.  Thus  progress,  or 
rational  movement,  is  characteristic  of  all  that  we  observe, 
and  doubtless  of  the  universe  as  a  whole.  Such  is  the  nature 
of  things  that  every  fact  falls  under  the  head  of  its  science,  or 
its  sciences,  and  a  universal  science  has  nothing  against  it 
but  human  limitations.  A  science  of  all  things  is  unattain¬ 
able,  but  the  idea  of  it  is  perfectly  reasonable  and  in  the 
direction  of  it  all  actual  science  moves.  This  is  the  kind  of 
universe  it  is — a  universe  scientifically  knowable.  All  the 
human  sciences  are  simply  approximate  descriptions  of  its 
actual  contents. 

In  the  universe  there  exists  also  that  rational  significance 
which  renders  Philosophy  possible.  Philosophy  advances 
beyond  science,  endeavouring  to  interpret  the  orderly  world 
that  Science  discovers  and  describes.  It  seeks  to  find  the 
meanings  that  run  through  it,  and  if  possible  the  meaning  that 
belongs  to  it  as  a  whole.  But  why  should  there  be  such  a 
thing  as  meaning?  If  science  proved  possible,  still  what 
suggested  something  more?  What  set  the  human  mind 
upon  the  task  of  interpretation?  From  what  cause  should 
philosophy  be  born?  To  these  questions  there  can  be  but 
one  answer.  The  universe  itself  is  responsible  for  philosophy. 
It  was  the  universe  itself  that  suggested  to  man,  its  kinsman, 
that  it  was  the  bearer  of  a  meaning.  Experience  long  ago 
convinced  mankind  that  the  universe  must  be  interpreted 


388 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


not  merely  in  terms  like  light  and  heat,  gravitation  and 
chemical  affinity,  but  also  in  terms  like  will  and  purpose  and 
character.  The  early  thinking  of  men  about  the  world 
moved  more  in  the  realm  of  philosophy  than  of  science,  for 
the  desire  to  understand  facts  arose  much  earlier  than  desire 
to  know  them  precisely.  Myths  made  for  explanation  of 
things  all  move  in  the  region  of  will  and  purpose,  and  seek  to 
set  forth  meanings.  From  such  beginnings  philosophy  has 
come  to  be  the  broadest  movement  of  the  mind,  but  it  has 
never  been  anything  else  than  a  response  of  man  to  the  uni¬ 
verse,  felt  to  be  meaningful  and  offering  itself  to  be  under¬ 
stood.  It  is  no  wonder  that  successful  interpretation  comes 
but  slowly,  and  that  endeavour  after  endeavour  proves  insuf¬ 
ficient.  It  is  no  reproach  to  philosophy  that  its  work  is  yet 
unfinished,  for  the  task  is  great,  and  new  knowledge  is  con¬ 
stantly  adding  to  the  problem.  Thought  is  still  struggling 
with  its  task,  and  will  never  surrender  it.  It  is  true  that  ag¬ 
nosticism  enters  this  field  as  well  as  that  of  religion,  and 
doubt  arises  whether  the  universe  is  a  field  for  philosophical 
interpretation;  but  this  is  only  a  passing  mood  and  cannot 
last.  It  comes  on  when  the  vastness  and  complexity  of  the 
universe  makes  the  human  mind  aware  of  its  own  littleness, 
or  when  conflicting  elements  in  the  problem  appear.  But 
the  universe  which  has  inspired  all  the  philosophy  that  man¬ 
kind  has  thus  far  known  will  continue  to  inspire  philosophy 
as  long  as  it  and  the  human  mind  exist  together,  simply  be¬ 
cause  it  is  what  it  is,  a  system  full  of  meaning. 

Still  further,  there  exists  in  the  universe  that  rational  sug¬ 
gestiveness  which  renders  Poetry  possible.  No  less  signifi¬ 
cant  is  this  quality  for  the  present  purpose  than  those  that 
are  responsible  for  philosophy  and  science.  The  poetic 
quality  may  be  almost  undefinable,  but  it  is  no  obscure  or 
doubtful  thing,  neither  is  it  a  modern  discovery.  From  its 
early  days  the  human  mind  has  been  poetic.  Perhaps  man 
began  as  poet.  His  early  observation  of  things  about  him 
was  very  far  from  being  exact,  but  it  was  suggestive,  and 
much  of  his  primitive  philosophy  was  nothing  but  poetry. 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


389 


There  was  good  reason.  The  mind  has  been  poetic  just  as 
it  has  been  scientific  and  philosophical,  because  its  environ¬ 
ment  contained  influences  that  trained  it  to  be  so.  The  uni¬ 
verse  was  the  first  great  poet,  or  man  would  have  been  none. 
When  the  eye  has  looked  upon  an  object  it  has  not  seen  it 
all.  Senses  cannot  find  the  whole,  nor  can  the  whole  be  told 
by  science  or  philosophy.  Any  given  thing  means  more  than 
in  itself  it  appears  to  mean,  and  carries  the  suggestion  of 
something  larger  and  of  finer  quality.  Analogies  run  through 
existence  and  wait  to  be  discovered.  Instructive  fables  from 
nature  have  occurred  to  men  from  the  earliest  times.  Para¬ 
bles  are  possible,  for  nature  and  common  affairs  suggest  les¬ 
sons  in  the  higher  life  of  the  spirit.  For  that  higher  world 
nature  is  boundlessly  suggestive.  Now  and  then,  indeed, 
some  one  maintains  that  Peter  Bell  was  right  when 

“A  primrose  by  the  river’s  brim 
A  yellow  primrose  was  to  him, 

And  it  was  nothing  more,”  , 

because  he  saw  precisely  what  was  there.  But  he  saw  only 
a  small  part  of  what  was  there.  When  a  poet  looked  upon 
a  flower  he  said : 

“  Flower  in  the  crannied  wall, 

I  pluck  you  out  of  the  crannies, 

Hold  you  here,  root  and  all,  in  my  hand. 

Little  flower — but  if  I  could  understand 
What  you  are,  root  and  all,  and  all  in  all, 

I  should  know  what  God  and  man  is.  ” 

His  insight  is  true,  for  this  is  a  world  in  which  suggestiveness 
has  no  limits.  Both  in  nature  and  in  life  poets  have  per¬ 
ceived  beauty  and  truth  beyond  all  that  language  could  ex¬ 
press.  Language,  indeed,  has  been  made  what  it  is  through 
the  ministrations  of  the  poetic  element  in  the  world  and  life. 
Not  only  its  finest  uses,  but  most  of  its  really  expressive  ordi¬ 
nary  forms,  are  outgrowths  of  analogy  and  utterances  of  the 
spirit  of  poetry.  Language  is  a  perpetual  witness  to  the  sugges- 


390 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


tiveness  of  all  things,  but  even  language  has  proved  too  feeble 
an  instrument  for  voicing  the  poetry  that  is  in  the  world. 
No  poet  has  ever  had  an  eye  for  a  tithe  of  the  possibilities, 
nor  have  all  poets  together  gone  so  far.  Poetic  significance  be¬ 
longs  to  all  existence,  and  doubtless  to  existence  as  a  whole, 
if  only  we  could  read  its  universal  meaning.  Experience  with 
epics  is  enough  to  assure  us  that  there  must  be  possible  an 
epic  of  the  mighty  whole.  The  universe  is  a  poetic  universe. 

And  yet,  again,  there  exists  in  the  universe  that  rational 
aesthetic  quality  which  renders  Art  possible.  This  quality  is 
akin  to  the  suggestiveness  that  gives  rise  to  poetry,  and  in 
their  development  the  two  have  been  closely  allied,  but  they 
are  not  the  same.  In  animals  and  men  there  is  a  surplus  of 
energy,  which,  not  being  required  for  the  labours  of  life,  ex¬ 
presses  itself  in  play.  With  all  his  work,  sportive  movements 
fill  out  the  measure  of  man’s  activity.  Out  of  sportiveness 
comes  gracefulness,  first  half-consciously  assumed,  then  cul¬ 
tivated.  To  grace  of  form  is  added  charm  of  colour,  and  step 
by  step  out  of  the  play  of  man  is  developed  what  we  know  as 
art.  Man  in  his  sportive  moods  never  suspects  that  his  play 
is  anything  more  than  play,  and  when  he  begins  to  turn  the 
pleasuring  impulse  into  the  rudiments  of  artistic  expression 
he  has  no  idea  that  he  is  doing  anything  of  large  significance. 
Not  until  art  has  grown,  and  brought  forth  noble  works,  and 
been  subjected  to  analysis,  is  the  secret  understood.  But  at 
length  it  becomes  known  that  in  this  development  from  his 
play  man  has  struck  into  the  great  system  of  principles  re¬ 
specting  colour,  form  and  beauty,  that  runs  through  the  uni¬ 
verse.  All  unconsciously,  he  has  become  an  interpreter  of 
nature  and  a  reproducer  of  her  methods.  In  being  a  player 
for  his  own  pleasure  he  has  become  an  actor  in  a  natural 
realm  of  whose  existence  he  never  dreamed.  The  universe 
was  about  him,  ready  as  soon  as  he  could  receive  it  to  reveal 
to  him  the  everlasting  law  which  he  had  so  unconsciously 
been  obeying.  That  aesthetic  law,  too,  is  rational,  like  the 
rest  of  the  world,  or  man  would  never  have  laid  hold  of  it. 
The  aesthetic  nature  of  the  wDrld,  and  the  poetic  also,  blends 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


391 


with  the  scientific  and  the  philosophical  in  rational  harmony. 
No  one  is  out  of  keeping  with  the  others,  or  is  complete  with¬ 
out  them.  The  universe  could  not  be  aesthetic  if  it  were  not 
orderly,  meaningful  and  suggestive.  Such  a  universe  it  is, 
sounding  with  this  harmony  of  qualities,  expressive  of  ra¬ 
tional  mind. 

Thus  Science,  Philosophy,  Poetry,  Art,  have  come  through 
response  of  man  to  qualities  manifested  by  the  universe  in  his 
presence.  Living  in  the  universe  has  trained  him  to  respond 
to  these  qualities  indwelling  in  it,  until  now  the  response  has 
become  the  very  body  of  his  intellectual  life.  The  response 
in  lower  forms  began  before  man  appeared.  The  universe 
received  life  into  its  bosom  at  its  lowest  beginnings,  and  has 
trained  it  up  to  this.  It  is  an  educative  universe,  capable  of 
this  high  service.  It  is  the  school  in  which  man  has  become 
scientist,  philosopher,  poet  and  artist,  and  which  has  more 
to  teach  him  yet. 

Certainly  the  testimony  of  the  universe  to  its  own  rational 
character  is  clear  and  convincing,  and  certainly  we  human 
beings  have  no  reason  to  doubt  its  word  or  complain  of  it  for 
deceiving  us.  To  us  it  has  always  been  an  honest  world, 
where  that  which  is  within  and  that  which  is  without  corre¬ 
spond  each  to  the  other.  Our  nature  compels  us  to  trust  the 
world,  and  the  world  has  earned  our  confidence.  If  it  testi¬ 
fies  to  its  own  rationality  we  can  believe  it,  and  if  it  bears 
witness  to  God  its  voice  is  worthy  to  be  heard. 

Of  all  that  has  been  said  in  this  chapter,  the  proper  mean¬ 
ing  has  all  the  time  been  plainly  in  sight,  and  must  now  be 
distinctly  brought  forward.  A  very  few  words,  however,  will 
suffice  to  express  it.  It  is  simply  that  the  universe,  thus 
rational  in  itself  and  in  its  workings,  bears  witness  every¬ 
where  to  the  existence  of  a  rational  Mind  inspiring  it  and 
giving  it  its  character.  A  system  organized  and  operating  on 
rational  principles,  bringing  forth  life  which  is  a  rational 
thing  from  its  birth,  training  life  up  to  human  reasonable¬ 
ness,  educating  mankind  in  rationality,  and  inexhaustible  in 


392 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


rational  quality  to  man  who  explores  it — a  system  that  thus 
has  rationality  for  its  supreme  trait — is  certainly  most  natu¬ 
rally  accounted  for  by  saying  that  it  owes  its  character  to  a  ra¬ 
tional  mind.  This  simple  and  natural  account  of  the  matter 
the  Christian  doctrine  accepts  and  proclaims.  Thought  im¬ 
plies  a  thinker,  rationality  implies  active  reason,  and  a  sys¬ 
tem  implies  an  organizing  knowledge  and  purpose.  Finding 
the  whole  scheme  of  things  expressive  of  thought  and  organ¬ 
ized  for  the  promotion  of  thought,  the  Christian  doctrine 
agrees  to  the  explanation,  natural  to  a  child  and  not  im¬ 
proved  upon  by  a  philosopher,  that  all  this  reasonableness 
and  efficiency  “cometh  from  the  Lord,  who  is  wonderful  in 
counsel  and  excellent  in  working  ”  (Isa.  xxviii.  29).  It  refers 
rational  facts  to  a  rational  source,  and  declares  that  in  dis¬ 
covering  a  rational  universe  we  discover  a  rational  God. 

This,  indeed,  is  very  simple.  Perhaps  it  may  appear  too 
simple.  Nevertheless,  this  is  the  Christian  doctrine  in  this 
part  of  the  field,  this  and  nothing  more.  The  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  simply  holds  that  such  a  world  as  this  bears  conclusive 
witness  to  the  one  all-comprehensive  mind  of  God.  The 
doctrine  is  as  comprehensive  as  it  is  simple.  It  is  capable  of 
expansion,  and  yet  for  its  due  effect  it  does  not  require  ex¬ 
pansion.  Under  its  main  point  are  included  all  the  argu¬ 
ments  for  the  existence  of  God  that  turn  upon  the  intellectual 
quality  of  the  world.  The  Christian  affirmation  itself  does 
not  expressly  contain  all  of  these:  they  may  be  constructed 
and  employed  if  it  is  desirable,  but  that  which  is  essential  to 
the  Christian  doctrine  is  merely  the  central  truth  that  the 
rational  world  implies  the  rational  God,  and  gives  us  suffi¬ 
cient  reason  to  believe  in  him.  To  the  simplicity  of  this  we 
shall  not  do  well  to  make  objection,  for  if  the  claim  is  true 
the  evidence  is  sufficient,  and  if  the  evidence  is  sufficient,  the 
simpler  it  is  the  better. 

This  theistic  explanation  of  the  rationality  of  the  universe 
is  not  only  the  sufficient  one:  it  may  further  be  said  that  it  is 
the  only  explanation. 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


393 


It  is  fair  to  say  at  this  stage  of  history  that  all  materialistic 
explanations  of  existing  things  have  lapsed  into  common 
failure.  Although  some  of  them  still  have  a  certain  vogue, 
we  need  not  dwell  upon  them  now.  At  the  end,  no  one  of 
them  really  explains  anything :  they  may  try  to  describe  proc¬ 
esses,  but  the  resort  to  matter  and  energy  really  provides  no 
explanation  at  all.  It  has  come  to  be  entirely  plain  that  the 
only  alternative  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  and  perfect  mind  is 
Agnosticism.  If  we  do  not  account  for  the  rational  character 
of  the  universe  by  referring  it  to  God,  we  shall  not  account 
for  it  at  all,  but  say  that  we  know  not  whence  it  came.  We 
shall  recognize  it,  and  make  use  of  it  as  constantly  as  if  we 
could  account  for  it,  but  shall  simply  say  that  we  do  live  in 
a  rational  world,  we  know  not  how  or  why.  Either  the  the- 
istic  explanation  of  the  reasonable  world  stands  true,  or  we 
have  none.  Of  the  pantheistic  view  of  the  world  it  may  suf¬ 
fice  to  say  that  pantheism  does  not  account  for  the  world:  it 
identifies  the  world  and  God,  but  gives  no  light  upon  origins 
or  original  causation.  Our  judgment  in  respect  of  accounting 
for  the  world  must  lie  between  Theism  and  Agnosticism :  we 
believe  in  God,  or  else  we  do  not  know. 

Why  not  Agnosticism?  What  is  the  objection  to  falling 
back  upon  our  ignorance  and  saying  that  we  do  not  know, 
and  cannot  know,  how  the  universe  ought  to  be  interpreted  ? 
Agnosticism  is  not  to  be  condemned  as  always  evil,  for  in  its 
place  it  is  good;  but  we  have  to  judge  whether  in  the  present 
case  it  is  the  reasonable  attitude  for  us  to  hold. 

One  relevant  fact  certainly  is  that  agnosticism  is  unreason¬ 
able  where  it  is  avoidable.  It  is  reasonable  to  trace  things  to 
their  causes  when  we  can.  Agnosticism  in  the  field  of  causa¬ 
tion  may  sometimes  be  unavoidable,  but  it  is  natural  for  us 
to  hope  that  in  any  important  case  it  may  be  only  a  tempo¬ 
rary  thing.  We  are  always  glad  to  pass  beyond  it,  and 
account  it  a  normal  act  to  do  so.  When  we  consider  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  accounting  for  the  rational  order  that  we  behold,  it 
seems  right  to  say  that  hopeless  ignorance  here  is  not  some¬ 
thing  to  be  welcomed,  or  regarded  as  likely  to  be  our  normal 


394 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


lot.  It  would  seem  probable  that  in  a  world  so  rational  as 
this  world  proves  to  be,  the  key  to  a  right  general  understand¬ 
ing  of  things  would  be  within  our  reach.  It  scarcely  seems 
probable  that  men  will  be  compelled  permanently  to  say  that 
they  do  not  know  how  the  world  came  to  be  a  reasonable 
order.  We  ought  not  to  accept  an  explanation  without  evi¬ 
dence,  merely  to  please  or  satisfy  ourselves,  but  if  a  fair  way 
out  of  agnosticism  appears,  we  should  hail  it  as  a  gift  in  har¬ 
mony  with  our  nature  and  a  sign  of  our  destiny.  And  now 
the  Christian  doctrine  declares  that  the  rationality  of  the 
world  is  due  to  a  rational  mind  producing  the  world  with  its 
high  quality.  If  we  accept  this,  we  shall  be  tracing  ration¬ 
ality  back  to  its  kind,  and  attributing  an  observed  quality  to 
the  congenial  action  of  a  kindred  power.  We  shall  say  that 
rationality  in  the  universe,  which  we  cannot  regard  as  con¬ 
scious,  was  imparted  by  a  conscious  and  mighty  Agent  to 
whom  the  quality  belonged.  The  Christian  doctrine  offers 
this  as  the  reasonable  explanation  of  what  would  otherwise 
be  unexplained.  When  there  is  so  good  a  case  of  reason  as 
this,  surely  we  may  claim  that  it  is  not  our  duty  to  leave  our¬ 
selves  in  agnosticism.  It  is  right  to  pass  over  from  sense  of 
ignorance  to  sense  of  conviction,  and  let  it  stand  for  certain 
that  the  reasonable  world  is  the  offspring  of  a  reasonable 
Mind  capable  of  producing  it. 

If  we  take  this  step,  we  shall  be  moving  along  with  the 
common  judgment  of  mankind  in  one  important  matter. 
The  Christian  doctrine  joins  with  the  common  judgment, 
founded  in  experience,  that  thought  implies  a  thinker;  that 
an  idea  has  its  origin  in  a  mind.  Agnosticism  declines,  or 
does  not  venture,  to  apply  this  principle  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  rationality  of  the  world:  it  suspects  that  we  are  not 
justified  in  such  an  act.  But  the  Christian  doctrine  affirms 
that  the  rational  fact  comes  forth  from  the  rational  power. 
Great,  far-reaching  ideas  expressed  throughout  the  universal 
order  it  regards  as  thoughts  of  a  creative  mind.  In  this  it 
passes  over  from  an  ignorance  that  is  exceptional  in  the 
methods  of  human  thought  to  a  conviction  that  accords  with 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


395 


those  methods.  In  this  the  Christian  doctrine  seems  to  have 
reason  on  its  side. 

But  further,  the  claim  for  agnosticism  as  a  matter  of  neces¬ 
sity  and  duty  breaks  down.  Experience  does  not  support  it. 

When  we  find  ourselves  drawing  conclusions  about  the 
universe  and  God,  it  is  not  surprising  if  we  pause  and  ask 
ourselves  whether  such  themes  are  not  beyond  our  powers. 
How  dare  we  ?  What  do  we  know  about  the  sum  of  things  ? 
and  what  are  we  that  we  should  draw  inferences  about  the 
total  of  existence  and  the  origin  of  the  universe?  We  are 
often  told  that  nothing  becomes  us  but  a  confession  of  igno¬ 
rance,  and  of  inability,  too:  we  do  not  know,  and  what  is 
more,  we  cannot  know:  we  have  no  right  to  be  anything  but 
agnostics  in  the  field  of  the  universal. 

A  healthy  sense  of  ignorance  is  a  true  friend  of  wisdom, 
and  it  is  wholesome  to  ask  again  whether  affirmation  of  the 
rational  universe  and  the  rational  God  is  not  beyond  our 
powers.  We  should  not  inquire  concerning  God  without  re¬ 
membering  the  limits  which  we  cannot  pass.  But  in  the 
present  case  we  have  something  to  remember  besides  our 
own  limitations:  we  have  to  consider  the  real  significance  of 
the  call  for  agnosticism.  What  is  now  demanded  is  that  we 
refrain  from  judgment  about  things  universal  because  they 
are  too  great  for  us.  Such  is  our  inability  to  know,  that  agnos¬ 
ticism  is  our  only  reasonable  attitude.  It  is  necessary  that 
we  consider  what  this  means. 

Inability  to  know  is  a  very  exacting  master,  that  requires 
complete  loyalty.  After  we  have  avowed  our  agnosticism, 
we  must  be  faithful  to  it.  If  we  are  to  be  agnostics,  agnos¬ 
tics  we  must  be,  confining  our  judgments  to  matters  that  are 
within  our  scope.  Concerning  things  universal  we  cannot 
affirm,  neither  can  we  deny.  If  one  act  is  beyond  us,  so  is  the 
other.  If  we  cannot  affirm  theism,  neither  can  we  affirm 
atheism.  This  agnosticism  is  incurable,  too,  for  it  is  grounded 
in  our  very  nature.  We  must  not  quietly  slip  over  into  denial 
of  the  eternal  Reason,  as  many  a  professed  agnostic  has  done: 
such  a  man  is  as  false  to  his  principles  as  one  who  relapses 


396 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


from  agnosticism  into  religion.  Agnosticism  grounded  in 
our  necessary  limitations  is  necessarily  complete  and  final. 
Not  only  does  it  disqualify  us  for  judging  whether  God  is 
real,  but,  by  the  same  token,  for  judging  whether  the  uni¬ 
verse  is  really  a  rational  system.  Both  judgments  are  be¬ 
yond  our  range:  we  can  form  no  opinion  that  ought  to 
command  our  confidence,  and  our  only  course  is  to  refrain 
from  judging. 

But  such  agnosticism  is  impossible.  It  cannot  be  sincere 
enough  to  last.  If  we  profess  it  in  words,  still  we  shall  not 
even  try  to  live  up  to  it,  for  we  cannot.  Some  affirmations 
about  things  universal  lie  beyond  our  range,  but  not  the 
affirmation  that  we  live  in  an  all-comprehensive  rational 
order,  or  that  the  reasonable  account  of  such  an  order  is 
found  in  the  existence  of  God.  No  power  to  judge  whether 
we  live  in  a  rational  universe  ?  There  is  no  day  when  we  do 
not  pass  such  judgment.  The  conception  of  a  universal 
rational  order  is  the  underlying  thought  in  all  our  thoughts 
and  works.  Our  living  consists  in  the  use  of  that  idea. 
Every  personal  life  is  grounded  in  it,  and  so  is  the  entire  in¬ 
telligent  career  of  mankind.  All  social  relations  imply  the 
universal  reason,  all  mental  growth  implies  it,  and  all  hopes 
for  the  future  assume  the  permanence  as  well  as  the  univer¬ 
sality  of  its  sway.  The  campaign  of  science,  the  endeavour 
of  philosophy,  the  flight  of  poetry,  the  insight  of  art,  all  con¬ 
sist  in  the  utilizing  of  the  rational  quality  about  us.  All  our 
activities  assume  the  all-pervading  rationality,  as  breathing 
assumes  the  air.  It  is  not  open  to  us  to  say  that  the  ration¬ 
ality  may  be  only  a  local  fact,  existing  where  we  discover  it, 
but  not  necessarily  elsewhere.  In  the  present  state  of  knowl¬ 
edge  there  is  no  such  thing  to  be  thought  of  as  a  limited  or 
local  rationality,  or  a  reasonable  method  that  is  less  than  uni¬ 
versal.  Once  it  might  have  been  possible  to  think  of  a  ra¬ 
tional  method  prevailing  in  this  world  of  ours,  while  yet  we 
did  not  know  whether  it  extended  further.  It  was  somewhat 
as  when  the  early  navigators  fancied  that  different  laws 
might  prevail  in  seas  which  their  ships  had  not  yet  entered. 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


397 


They  found  at  length  that  nature  was  the  same  in  all  seas; 
and  we  have  learned  that  the  rational  order  is  one  in  all 
worlds.  We  do  not  have  to  visit  all  the  suns  to  learn  whether 
the  spectrum  will  open  to  us  their  secrets,  nor  do  we  even 
have  to  inquire:  we  know  it  will.  The  universe  is  not  made 
up  of  separate  districts,  some  of  which  may  be  rational  while 
others  are  not:  rational  here,  it  is  known  to  be  rational  every¬ 
where.  The  modern  light  is  the  very  light  in  which  we  can¬ 
not  decline  to  judge  whether  the  great  whole  is  a  rational  sys¬ 
tem.  Doubt  of  our  ability  to  answer  that  question  is  behind 
the  age,  even  though  it  be  urged  upon  us  by  men  who  are 
accounted  leaders  of  our  time :  it  belongs  to  the  same  period 
with  polytheism,  the  ages  before  unity. 

The  littleness  of  the  human  mind  and  knowledge  is 
pleaded  as  the  ground  for  agnosticism  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  universe  and  the  being  of  God.  The  appeal  is  plausible, 
but  unsound.  The  limitations  are  real,  but  justify  a  very 
different  inference  from  this.  On  the  contrary,  when  we 
take  note  of  the  character  of  our  own  knowledge,  it  is  in¬ 
credible  that  there  does  not  exist  a  knowledge  radically  dif¬ 
ferent  from  it  in  character  and  scope. 

We  cannot  doubt  that  our  rational  process  is  a  valid  way 
of  knowing,  but  neither  can  we  imagine  that  it  can  ever  lead 
us  to  perfect  knowledge.  The  method  of  our  knowing  settles 
that.  For  all  that  we  know  we  are  absolutely  dependent 
upon  the  method  of  observation  and  experience.  All  our 
knowledge  is  empirical.  What  we  know  we  have  learned, 
and  what  we  are  yet  to  know  we  have  yet  to  learn.  Each  of 
us  began  with  nothing.  Our  acquiring  has  been  limited, 
and  must  always  be,  by  our  opportunities  to  learn,  and  these 
are  never  complete,  or  even  well-proportioned.  An  element 
that  we  call  chance  helps  to  determine  them.  We  cannot 
know  the  future,  and  hence  our  interpretation  of  the  past 
can  be  only  tentative,  while  of  the  past  itself  we  can  know 
only  a  minor  part.  Full  comprehensive  knowledge  of  any 
single  fact  is  impossible  to  us,  even  though  it  be  a  fact  of  our 


398 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


own  most  intimate  experience.  Thus  all  our  knowledge  is 
fragmentary  and  imperfect,  and  cannot  be  otherwise.  It  is  all 
secondary,  not  primary — knowledge  of  that  which  existed 
before  we  knew  it.  The  field  of  science  lay  there  with  all  its 
contents  before  science  was  born.  We  originate  nothing  of 
what  we  know,  save  in  so  far  as  we  originate  our  actions. 
We  are  born  to  be  explorers,  observers,  learners,  in  realms 
already  full  of  matter  to  be  learned;  and  all  that  is  human 
is  like  us  in  this  respect. 

Indeed,  all  finite  knowledge  is  alike;  and  by  finite  knowl¬ 
edge  is  meant  all  knowledge  that  exists  within  the  universe. 
There  may  be  knowledge  far  wider  and  deeper  than  ours, 
more  accurate  and  more  adequate,  but  in  whatever  finite 
mind  it  may  exist,  and  in  whatever  age  or  world  it  may  have 
come  into  existence,  it  has  been  acquired.  It  is  secondary 
knowledge,  not  primary,  obtained  like  ours  by  observation 
and  experience,  and,  like  ours,  fragmentary  and  incomplete. 
No  finite  mind  can  think  anything  completely  through,  or 
know  the  whole  of  anything.  If  the  loftiest  of  intelligences, 
with  the  utmost  of  opportunity,  had  occupied  himself  for 
ages  in  learning,  still  there  would  be  inconceivable  amounts 
that  he  did  not  know,  and  nothing  that  he  knew  to  perfec¬ 
tion.  Our  limitations  are  not  special  or  temporary,  or  even 
exclusively  human:  the  very  structure  and  position  of  the 
finite  forbid  perfect  knowledge,  and  an  endless  future  will 
not  make  it  otherwise. 

If  we  think  there  is  no  God,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  think 
that  no  knowledge  radically  unlike  this  of  ours  exists  or  can 
exist:  that  all  knowledge  is  secondary,  experimental,  frag¬ 
mentary:  that  the  universe  has  never  been  thought  through 
or  held  as  a  whole  in  any  mind,  neither  has  any  single  thing 
been  grasped  and  understood  in  all  its  relations.  If  there  is 
no  mind  greater  and  more  primary  than  the  minds  that  are 
part  of  the  universe,  then  there  is  no  mind  capable  of  under¬ 
standing  all  things,  or  of  fully  understanding  anything.  All 
knowledge  is  like  ours,  greater,  perhaps,  but  not  essen¬ 
tially  different,  if  there  is  no  God.  And  yet  all  the  material 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


399 


for  all  the  secondary  and  experimental  knowledge  that 
exists  was  in  existence,  no  one  knows  how  or  whence, 
ready  to  be  known  as  soon  as  there  were  minds  to  know 
it.  This  is  the  view  of  the  universe  that  is  true  if  no  place 
is  found  for  God.  If  we  are  atheists,  we  shall  affirm  this: 
if  we  are  agnostics,  we  shall  simply  say  that  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing  whether  this  view  of  the  universe  is  true 
or  not. 

To  state  the  position  fairly  is  to  refute  it.  A  good  deal 
about  the  universe  we  do  know,  and  what  we  know  teaches 
a  different  doctrine  from  this.  If  the  sum  of  existence  con¬ 
tained  no  signs  of  intellect,  and  had  never  nourished  a  mind, 
if  it  were  a  dull  and  senseless  mass,  dead  matter  and  brute 
force,  without  movement  or  meaning,  then,  perhaps,  we 
might  think  that  no  mind  had  ever  thought  it  through — 
which  would  be  the  largest  thought  about  it  that  had  ever 
been  entertained.  But  of  the  universe  that  exists  we  can 
imagine  no  such  thing.  It  has  structure  and  order,  and 
method  is  its  prime  characteristic.  It  is  so  full  of  ideas  in 
operation  that  all  human  study  has  only  begun  to  find  them 
out.  It  has  provided  material  for  all  the  systematic  knowl¬ 
edge  that  men  possess,  and  suggestion  for  all  their  finer 
thought.  Nay,  it  has  brought  forth  man  himself,  and  trained 
him  to  his  present  rationality,  and  is  training  him  still.  And 
shall  we  now  call  such  a  universe  an  unthought  thing?  or 
shall  we  say  that  we  can  form  no  judgment  as  to  whether  it 
has  ever  been  embraced  in  a  perfect  comprehension  ?  By  all 
progress  in  science  and  philosophy  and  all  vitality  in  poetry 
and  art,  by  the  significance  of  life  and  the  effectiveness  of 
experience  as  an  instructor,  the  world  commends  itself  to  us 
as  a  world  known  before  we  knew  it,  and  understood  better 
than  we  can  ever  understand  it.  The  facts  are  convincing, 
and  we  are  quite  competent  to  be  convinced. 

The  inference  that  we  ought  to  draw  from  our  own  limita¬ 
tions  is  that  there  must  be  a  Mind  that  is  free  from  them. 
Our  kind  of  knowledge  cannot  possibly  be  the  best  that  ex¬ 
ists.  There  must  be  a  knowledge  that  is  primary,  indepen- 


400 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


dent,  perfect.  The  eternal  Reason,  the  omniscient  Mind,  the 
all-embracing  Wisdom,  the  perfect  understanding,  the  long 
foresight,  the  comprehensive  purpose,  the  living  God — all 
these  must  be  real,  in  contrast  to  the  limited  knowledge  which 
we  are  unable  to  transcend.  The  greatness  which  religion 
attributes  to  God  is  a  necessity  to  all  clear  thought. 

The  question  that  we  have  thus  answered  is  a  serious  one 
in  practical  light.  If  we  were  compelled  to  affirm  that  there 
was  no  original  and  comprehensive  conception  of  existence, 
and  the  universe  had  never  been  thought  through,  two  fa¬ 
miliar  conceptions  of  the  world  would  pass  away.  We  might 
wish  to  retain  them,  and  cherish  arguments  in  their  favour, 
but  in  vain. 

One  of  these  is  the  religious  or  providential  view  of  the 
world.  The  providential  idea  has  been  variously  expressed 
— all  things  work  together  for  good;  every  man’s  life  a  plan 
of  God;  one  far-off  divine  event,  to  which  the  whole  creation 
moves.  It  is  not  a  Christian  idea  alone,  for  other  religions 
have  held  it  also.  Life  has  been  thought  to  have  a  meaning 
that  men  did  not  put  into  it,  a  meaning  ordered  and  devel¬ 
oped  by  the  counsel  of  God.  Of  course  it  is  implied  that 
God  knows  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  understands 
the  system  and  order  that  he  has  created.  In  fact,  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  providence  is  simply  the  doctrine  of  the  comprehen¬ 
siveness  and  perfection  of  the  divine  thought.  If  we  cannot 
affirm  a  comprehensive  and  perfect  divine  thought,  all  idea 
of  an  intended  providential  and  religious  meaning  in  life 
must  vanish.  This  view  of  existence,  however  precious,  can¬ 
not  survive  the  influence  of  that  agnosticism  which  we  are 
invited  to  regard  as  unavoidable. 

The  providential  or  religious  view  of  the  world  will  not 
vanish  alone  if  it  is  thus  driven  out  by  agnosticism.  With  it 
will  go  the  evolutionary  view  of  existence.  In  evolutionary 
doctrine  it  is  held  that  the  universe  is  pervaded  by  a  method 
rational  and  intelligible.  Conditions  are  followed  by  results 
in  a  way  that  our  intelligence  can  grasp  and  interpret.  One 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  RATIONAL 


401 


vast  conception  runs  through  from  first  to  last,  from  lowest 
to  highest,  and  all  is  done  in  pursuance  of  one  idea,  more 
accurately  than  human  plans  are  ever  followed  by  human 
action.  The  intellectual  nature  of  the  movement  is  affirmed 
as  something  that  was  there  before  there  was  man  to  discover 
it,  inwrought  from  remotest  ages  to  the  system  and  indis¬ 
pensable  to  its  existence.  But  this  conception  of  the  universe 
has  no  better  standing-ground  than  the  providential  view  of 
life,  if  there  exists  no  knowledge  such  as  we  attribute  to  God. 
The  evolutionary  doctrine  implies  that  the  universe  has  been 
thought  through  and  made  the  vehicle  of  an  original  purpose, 
just  as  truly  as  does  the  religious  doctrine.  Evolution  is  the 
scientific  providence.  If  there  is  no  original  and  originative 
mind  comprehending  all,  the  evolutionary  conception  of  a 
significant  unity  in  all  things  is  absolutely  unsupported.  We 
are  trifling  with  our  own  intelligence  if  we  say  that  the  rational 
quality  may  have  come  into  the  great  unfolding  without  a 
rational  mind  to  put  it  there.  A  rational  evolution  implies  a 
rational  God,  and  the  denial  of  the  comprehensive  knowledge 
leaves  the  evolutionary  view  of  the  world  without  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  sound  support. 

It  is  true  that  there  are  many  believers  in  the  fact  of 
evolution  who  do  not  see  this  to  be  true.  But  that  is 
mainly  because  they  have  been  occupied  with  other  aspects 
of  the  subject.  The  intellectual  quality  of  the  universe 
they  have  been  progressively  discovering  and  establishing, 
but  the  theistic  bearing  of  their  own  work  they  have  not 
yet  considered.  Its  time  is  coming.  They  are  establishing 
the  presence  of  mind  in  the  universe  so  firmly  that  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  a  supreme  and  perfect  Mind  cannot  much  longer  be 
obscure. 

The  rational  order  is  the  real  order,  original  and  everlast¬ 
ing,  else  our  first  rational  convictions  are  refuted  and  our  in¬ 
tellectual  life  is  put  to  confusion.  We  assent  with  mind  and 
heart  to  the  reality  that  accounts  for  sound  reason,  and  bow 
in  worship  before  the  God  of  infinite  knowledge,  wisdom 
and  power. 


402 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


3.  EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 

Still  the  argument  starts  from  man.  From  the  rational  in 
man  we  proceeded  to  the  rational  in  the  universe,  and  from 
the  great  unity  of  rational  being  thus  discovered  to  the  cer¬ 
tainty  of  a  rational  source  and  inspiration  for  the  whole  in 
God.  Now  from  a  kindred  but  still  higher  quality  in  man, 
still  farther  advanced  from  mere  life,  and  of  even  higher  sig¬ 
nificance  in  the  human  story,  we  proceed  to  such  inferences 
as  it  may  warrant  concerning  the  Being  who  is  above.  We 
still  have  the  advantages  that  come  from  a  starting-point  in 
humanity.  We  begin  with  that  which  we  know,  and  with 
the  greatest  that  our  known  world  contains.  If  we  can  deal 
fairly  with  the  materials  that  are  here  before  us,  surely  we 
may  hope  for  truth  in  our  conclusions. 

This  word  spiritual  with  which  we  begin  may  seem  too 
ambiguous  for  our  purpose,  for,  familiar  though  it  is,  it  is  a 
word  of  various  use,  and  perhaps  is  more  suggestive  than 
exact.  But  we  need  a  single  word,  and  there  is  none  better 
than  this :  moreover,  it  is  not  so  ambiguous  as  to  lose  its  use¬ 
fulness.  There  is  a  set  of  powers  in  man  and  qualities  in  life 
which  this  term  clearly  enough  describes.  The  part  of 
human  nature  to  which  it  applies  is  not  far  from  the  rational 
element,  which,  indeed,  is  included  or  implied  in  its  conno¬ 
tation.  But  it  includes  more.  With  the  rational  it  includes 
the  moral,  and  with  the  moral  the  religious.  When  we  call 
man  a  being  of  spiritual  endowments,  we  mean  that  he  is 
possessor  of  the  powers  out  of  which  morality  and  religion 
have  been  brought  forth,  and  is  open  to  all  the  possibilities 
that  rationality,  morality  and  religion  imply.  By  possession 
of  his  rational  nature  he  has  moral  responsibility  and  religious 
powers,  and  is  capable  of  rising  to  life  above  sensuous  and 
temporal  things,  in  the  fellowship  of  the  eternal.  Of  this 
ability  he  gives  proof,  in  that  he  actually  lives  a  life  of 
morality  and  religion,  far  from  the  best,  but  sufficient  to  show 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


403 


him  capable  of  the  best.  It  is  from  man  as  such  a  be¬ 
ing  that  the  present  line  of  evidence  for  the  reality  of  God 
proceeds. 

The  first  thing  to  be  mentioned  here  is  the  unqualified 
breadth  of  this  statement  concerning  man.  For  the  present 
purpose  we  must  be  careful  to  admit  no  partial  or  provincial 
conception  of  mankind.  We  must  enlarge  our  thought  to 
take  in,  if  we  are  able,  absolutely  the  whole  of  humanity. 
When  we  call  man  a  being  of  spiritual  endowments,  it  is  not 
enough  to  be  thinking  of  man  as  he  exists  under  Christian 
influences  or  the  influence  of  other  of  the  higher  religions. 
It  is  not  enough  to  think  of  him  as  he  now  is,  at  the  present 
stage  of  his  racial  experience,  or  to  learn  what  he  is  from  the 
available  records  of  history.  We  often  form  our  mental  pict¬ 
ure  of  mankind  in  such  ways  as  these,  but  for  the  present 
purpose  these  modes  are  too  narrow.  The  true  and  adequate 
conception  of  man  as  a  spiritual  being  regards  humanity  as 
more  ancient  than  we  can  measure,  a  race  brought  forth  from 
lower  life,  and  continuous  from  its  beginning  until  to-day. 
What  is  said  of  man  and  his  nature  is  said  of  this  entire  race. 
The  point  is  that  ever  since  man  became  man  he  has  been 
gifted  with  spiritual  as  well  as  with  rational  endowments. 
Those  qualities  in  humanity  to  which  we  look  for  testimony 
to  God  belong  to  humanity  taken  as  a  single  whole,  and 
extend  through  the  entire  sweep  of  human  existence.  This, 
which  is  a  vital  point  in  our  study  of  the  rational  in  man, 
is  no  less  vital  in  our  study  of  the  spiritual.  What  we 
affirm  of  the  spiritual  nature  is  affirmed  of  men  as  men,  and 
of  them  all. 

The  coming  of  man  into  the  world  consisted  in  the  coming 
of  the  soul  into  man.  The  ambiguities  in  this  true  statement 
need  not  perplex  us.  We  need  not  be  troubled  because  we 
cannot  define  the  substance  of  the  soul,  or  tell  exactly  at  what 
point  of  time  it  might  first  have  been  said  to  be  present.  We 
know  that  it  did  not  spring  up  all  in  a  moment,  but  came 
through  gradual  development  of  its  faculties  in  experience. 


404 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


When  certain  powers  and  faculties  had  reached  a  certain 
stage,  their  possessor  was  man,  and  continued  to  be  man 
thenceforth  because  he  was  their  possessor.  That  we  cannot 
define  the  degree  of  development  that  was  necessary  to  make 
him  man  is  of  no  importance  here.  The  soul  is  the  differen¬ 
tiating  element  of  the  man,  and  the  dawning  of  the  soul  was 
the  entering  of  the  human.  And  the  dawning  of  the  soul  was 
the  natural  development  of  life,  through  the  experience  that 
was  normal  to  it. 

The  statement  that  rationality  is  only  the  normal  unfolding 
of  life  we  have  already  expounded  thus:  Life  has  senses, 
senses  bring  sensations,  sensations  must  be  compared  and 
choice  between  their  values  must  be  made,  and  thus  rational 
judgment  comes  into  existence  from  the  nature  and  condi¬ 
tions  of  life  itself.  Having  entered  in  its  lowest  forms  to  the 
realm  of  life,  rationality  was  trained  by  experience  in  a  ra¬ 
tional  universe  until  the  human  grade  was  reached:  and 
since  man  became  aware  of  his  rational  powers  the  education 
has  been  far  more  rapid  and  comprehensive.  To  this  account 
of  the  rational  in  man  must  now  be  added  a  similar  account 
of  the  spiritual.  This,  too,  the  spiritual  nature,  is  a  normal 
development  of  life.  From  the  rational  stage  life  works  on 
in  accordance  with  its  own  nature  to  the  spiritual.  Both  the 
moral  element  and  the  religious  belong  to  man  as  man,  and 
to  all  men,  because  they  are  thus  genuine  unfoldings  of  life 
itself. 

Look  first  at  the  life  in  morals.  The  entrance  of  the  moral 
quality  to  life  has  seemed  mysterious,  and  has  often  been 
accounted  so  great  an  event  as  to  be  possible  only  by  special 
creative  act  of  God.  It  is  of  God  indeed,  but  it  is  not  so 
mysterious,  nor  must  it  have  been  due  to  a  sudden  stroke  of 
creative  power.  Man^s  rational  nature  is  of  such  a  kind  that 
he  cannot  fail  to  find  himself  a  moral  being  also.  For  man 
is  an  actor:  he  is  capable  of  conscious  and  intentional  action, 
and  it  is  his  nature  to  be  always  performing  it.  He  lives  not 
alone,  but  in  relations  with  other  beings,  and  in  those  rela¬ 
tions  his  actions  proceed.  Naturally  his  actions  will  some- 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


405 


times  be  such  as  those  relations,  rightly  understood,  require, 
and  sometimes  such  as  they  would  forbid  or  condemn. 
Some  may  be  neutral,  but  many  will  be  of  decided  character, 
normal  or  abnormal  in  the  relations  of  the  doer.  But  what 
is  normal  in  one’s  relations  is  right,  and  what  is  abnormal  there 
's  wrong:  this  is  the  fundamental  definition  of  right  and 
wrong,  which,  though  manifold  interpretations  of  it  are 
added  as  life  goes  on,  has  never  been  superseded  as  incorrect. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  equally  true  that  for  a  man  to  act  nor¬ 
mally  in  his  relations  is  to  be  normal  in  himself,  and  to  act 
abnormally  there  is  to  sin  against  himself:  these  social  and 
personal  definitions  of  right  and  wrong  are  parallel  and  har¬ 
monious.  So  it  is  plain  that  since  man  is  always  living  and 
acting  in  relations  with  his  fellows  he  is  always  doing  right 
and  wrong.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  keep  the  moral  quality 
out  of  the  active  life  of  a  rational  being.  That  quality  did 
not  need  to  be  specially  created,  for  it  is  a  natural  and  inevi¬ 
table  trait  of  life,  when  once  life  has  moved  on  to  the  grade 
of  rationality. 

It  must  be  added  that  the  perception  of  this  quality  is  as 
inevitable  as  the  possession  of  it.  It  is  the  nature  of  a  ra¬ 
tional  being  to  pass  judgment  upon  whatever  comes  into  his 
life,  and  the  common  power  of  judgment  estimates  good  and 
evil,  right  and  wrong,  as  it  estimates  other  matters  of  experi¬ 
ence.  Not  that  it  always  estimates  them  clearly  or  correctly, 
for  the  power  of  judgment  was  begun,  like  the  bodily  senses, 
in  deep  imperfectness;  but  like  them  it  was  capable  of  train¬ 
ing  through  experience,  and  certain  to  receive  it.  And  such 
is  the  nature  of  right  and  wrong  that  a  rational  being  must 
feel  himself  responsible  when  he  has  done  the  one  or  the 
other.  This,  too,  is  done  imperfectly,  but  it  is  done,  by  the 
nature  of  the  case,  and  life  becomes  solemn  in  proportion  as 
the  sense  of  responsibility  becomes  a  real  thing. 

Moral  nature  thus  belongs  to  man  as  man.  It  is  a  prop¬ 
erty  of  that  soul  whose  coming  constituted  him  human.  Man 
himself  has  been  aware  of  it  much  longer  than  he  has  called 
it  by  a  name  or  recorded  his  reflections  upon  it.  Long  before 


406 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


his  consciousness  of  it  became  distinct  and  definable  he  was 
conducting  his  life  upon  a  crude  but  urgent  sense  of  his  moral 
nature.  It  dates  back  to  his  very  origin,  and  can  never  be 
eliminated  from  his  constitution. 

Look  now  at  the  life  of  man  in  religion.  It  is  one  of  the 
commonplaces  of  modern  knowledge  that  religion  in  some 
form  has  been  practically  universal  in  the  human  race  from 
earlier  times  than  we  have  opportunity  of  observing.  Very 
early  in  his  career  man  was  influenced  by  religious  motives. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  he  should  be,  for  this  too  is  a  natural 
unfolding  of  the  nature  of  rational  existence,  which  itself  is 
a  natural  unfolding  of  life.  The  human  being  exists  in  a 
world  greater  than  himself,  and  is  constantly  influenced  by 
its  forces.  Its  powers  are  mysterious  to  him,  its  wonders  are 
many.  Often  he  is  made  to  feel  his  own  insignificance,  for  the 
world  can  do  him  boundless  good  or  harm.  Moreover,  as 
soon  as  he  is  able  to  put  thoughts  together  he  knows  that  he 
did  not  make  himself,  but  was  somehow  brought  into  exist¬ 
ence  in  this  powerful  and  mysterious  world.  Now  it  cannot 
be  claimed  that  out  of  these  primitive  sensations  any  theory 
of  religion  could  be  constructed;  but  it  is  quite  impossible  to 
think  that  primitive  man  could  live  in  such  conditions  without 
having  the  rudimentary  experiences  of  religion.  Recognition 
of  a  greater  power  on  which  he  was  dependent  was  a  part  of 
the  very  substance  of  his  early  life.  Modes  and  forms  of  re¬ 
ligion  were  of  course  determined  by  various  and  changing 
conditions,  and  so  was  the  prominence  of  this  or  that  element 
in  the  complex  conception;  but  life  in  a  great  world  of  mys¬ 
terious  forces  would  inevitably  suggest  to  a  thinking  race  the 
considerations  of  which  religion  is  composed.  This,  too,  is 
simply  a  normal  unfolding  of  the  nature  of  life,  when  life  had 
become  human  in  a  world  like  this.  There  was  no  need  of 
special  creation  to  produce  religion  in  mankind.  This  is  why 
religion  belongs  to  man  as  man,  and  to  all  men — because  it 
is  a  true  and  proper  consequence  of  the  relations  in  which  all 
men  find  themselves.  The  relations  of  man  to  his  fellows 
brought  forth  morality:  the  relations  of  man  to  larger  exist- 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


407 


ence  around  him  brought  forth  religion.  Both  are  equally 
normal  and  inevitable  developments  from  the  nature  of  life. 

We  cannot  here  follow  out  the  growth  of  the  various  ele¬ 
ments  that  have  entered  into  the  religious  life  of  mankind. 
But  we  can  say  with  confidence  that  primitive  religion,  as  far 
back  as  we  can  trace  it,  contained  all  the  elements  that  con¬ 
stitute  religion  now,  whether  in  its  lowest  or  its  highest  forms; 
only  they  were  present  in  modes  that  correspond  to  the  child¬ 
hood  of  the  race.  The  sense  of  dependence  was  present  in 
force,  as  we  have  just  said,  being  inspired  by  the  greatness  of 
the  nature-powers,  and  by  man’s  consciousness  that  he  did 
not  originate  himself.  Then  it  was  the  most  natural  thing  in 
the  world  that  man  should  think  of  those  tremendous  con¬ 
trolling  powers  as  powers  to  which  he  might  address  himself, 
admiring  and  adoring  them,  seeking  their  help,  or  begging 
off  from  their  vengeance;  and  thus  the  possibility  of  com¬ 
munion,  of  worship,  and  ultimately  of  revelation  to  man, 
came  naturally  to  be  believed  in.  And  when  it  was  thought 
possible  to  communicate  with  the  higher  powers,  it  naturally 
followed  that  a  sense  of  some  duty  toward  them  arose,  and 
a  binding  authority  was  attributed  to  them;  and  it  was  in¬ 
evitable  that  in  the  course  of  time  the  sanctions  of  that  moral¬ 
ity  which  was  developed  in  human  relations  should  be  found 
in  the  character  and  government  of  the  powers  above.  But 
we  know  that  the  sense  of  dependence  upon  God,  the  sense 
of  obligation  to  God,  and  the  sense  of  ability  to  commune 
with  God,  make  up  the  consciousness  that  constitutes  the 
experience  of  religion,  even  in  the  highest  forms  that  it  bears 
to-day;  and  all  these  were  present,  crude  but  genuine,  in 
primitive  human  experience,  being  naturally  suggested  by 
facts  with  which  all  men  were  concerned.  Thus  all  the  essen¬ 
tial  elements  of  religion  came  by  normal  process  into  the  uni¬ 
versal  experience  of  the  race. 

It  is  a  familiar  question  which  of  the  two  elements  in  life, 
the  moral  or  the  religious,  was  the  earlier,  and  whether  either 
ime  may  have  been  the  source  of  the  other.  All  possible  an- 


408 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


swers  have  been  given,  but  probably  the  inquiry  is  unnec¬ 
essary.  Each  of  the  two  sprang  up  by  itself,  at  the  suggestion 
of  facts  suitable  and  sufficient  to  produce  it,  and  the  two 
grew  side  by  side.  Not  at  first  did  they  come  together  to  re¬ 
inforce  each  other  effectively,  but  it  was  a  part  of  the  nature 
of  the  case  that  they  should  thus  at  length  unite,  and  so  they 
have  done,  in  various  degrees  of  effectiveness.  But  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  origins,  neither  was  needed  to  produce  the  other,  each 
being  a  true  outgrowth  from  the  nature  of  life  itself.  This 
is  a  sufficient  reason  why  both  belong  to  man  as  man,  and 
are  inalienable  elements  of  his  human  nature. 

The  moral  and  religious  elements  in  life  are  certainly 
worthy  to  be  united  under  a  single  name,  for  they  belong  to¬ 
gether.  By  their  quality  they  are  adapted  to  blend  into  a 
noble  unity.  Through  long  periods  both  have  been  crude 
and  low  in  grade,  neither  of  them  fully  appearing  for  what  it 
is;  but  it  is  possible  for  the  two  to  appear  together  in  high 
degree  and  quality.  Then  religion  takes  hold  upon  a  worthy 
superhuman  object  for  its  worship  and  confidence,  and  moral¬ 
ity,  with  growing  discrimination  and  sense  of  right  and  wrong, 
is  glad  to  draw  its  motives  from  sources  divine  as  well  as 
human.  Then  these  two  elements  in  human  nature  con¬ 
spire  to  set  their  affections  on  things  that  are  above,  and  seek 
the  highest  ends  of  existence.  This  devotion  to  the  highest 
ends  of  life,  in  which  religion  and  morality  unite,  constitute, 
both  in  individuals  and  in  peoples,  that  noble  character  which 
is  often  called  spirituality,  and  illustrates  the  ideal  of  that 
which  in  this  chapter  is  meant  by  the  spiritual  in  man. 
When  the  spiritual  in  man  attains  to  its  ideal  meaning  and 
fulness,  it  brings  forth  this  ethico-religious  devotion  to  the 
most  normal  ends  of  existence.  This  result  has  appeared  in 
various  degrees  in  various  ages  the  world  over.  Even  when 
sadly  imperfect,  it  has  been  worthy  of  grateful  recognition. 
It  is  the  crown  of  life,  in  all  lands  and  times.  At  any  given 
day  it  is  the  noblest  crown  that  life  then  wears,  and  at  its 
best  it  is  absolutely  the  crown  of  life,  than  which  nothing 
nobler  will  ever  be  possible  to  men. 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


409 


We  must  not  be  led  by  our  interest  in  the  higher  forms  of 
this  great  gift  to  undervalue  it  in  its  lower  stages,  neither 
must  we  find  in  those  lower  stages  more  than  is  really  there. 
Either  of  these  errors  comes  easily.  Some  students  of  man¬ 
kind  would  define  religion  only  in  its  higher  terms,  and  con¬ 
sider  all  religious  manifestations  below  the  best  as  entirely  of 
another  class;  while  others  would  speak  almost  as  if  religion 
bore  a  uniform  value,  whatever  its  grade.  It  is  needless, 
however,  to  fall  into  either  extreme.  The  spiritual  in  man 
has  always  been  precious;  relatively  to  his  life  and  his  outfit 
of  powers  it  has  always  been  his  noblest  part.  Yet  it  has 
sadly  failed  to  come  to  its  best,  and  only  through  the  revela¬ 
tion  of  God  does  anything  like  its  full  value  appear.  We  re¬ 
joice  in  the  spiritual  at  its  worthiest:  and  yet  if  we  prize 
the  best  in  morals  and  religion,  our  eyes  ought  to  be  all  the 
clearer  to  discern  the  lower  forms  of  the  same  great  good,  and 
our  hearts  the  more  tender  to  appreciate  their  preciousness 
to  mankind. 

This  account  of  the  spiritual  in  man  has  been  given  in 
order  that  reasonable  inferences  may  be  drawn  from  its  ex¬ 
istence.  It  is  to  be  used  as  evidence  concerning  God. 

Here  we  must  start  from  the  fact  that  the  spiritual  in  man 
cannot  be  understood  if  we  regard  it  merely  as  an  inward 
experience.  It  is  very  far  from  being  something  self-con¬ 
tained.  It  is  not  fully  seen  till  we  have  looked  beyond  man 
himself.  Its  supreme  quality  is  that  it  looks  and  reaches  out¬ 
ward,  to  take  hold  of  some  reality  existing  outside. 

This,  we  are  at  once  reminded,  is  a  quality  not  peculiar 
to  this  element  in  human  powers.  All  human  powers  do  the 
same,  and  so  do  all  powers  that  are  characteristic  of  life. 
Life  indeed  consists,  so  far  as  we  can  define  it,  in  the  mys¬ 
terious  ability  to  seize  upon  surrounding  things  and  utilize 
them  for  its  purpose.  The  lowliest  thing  that  lives,  as  well  as 
the  loftiest,  lives  by  laying  hold  of  that  which  is  beyond  itself. 
The  working  of  this  process  is  life,  the  end  of  it  is  death. 


410 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


We  have  already  seen  how  the  human  powers  illustrate  this 
method.  The  bodily  senses  could  have  no  existence,  because 
they  could  be  of  no  use,  if  it  were  not  for  corresponding  real¬ 
ities  outside.  The  eye  is  an  organ  for  utilizing  light,  the  ear 
for  appropriating  sound.  The  rational  powers  of  humanity 
are  powers  for  utilizing  the  rational  quality  in  the  universe 
where  man  has  his  home.  They  reach  out  to  the  reasonable 
order  around,  and  by  that  order  they  are  educated,  drawing 
in  knowledge  that  feeds  and  strengthens  them  and  serves 
their  purpose.  Like  all  other  samples  of  life,  man  is  an  out- 
reaching  being,  whose  connections  are  essential  to  his  exist¬ 
ence.  What  is  thus  true  of  his  other  powers  is  true  also  of 
his  spiritual  element.  This,  too,  implies  and  assumes  some¬ 
thing  outside  of  itself,  and  seizes  upon  it  for  its  own  use.  Here 
in  fact  is  found  the  most  significant  illustration  of  this  prin¬ 
ciple  that  the  study  of  mankind  anywhere  affords. 

What  is  that  which  the  spiritual  in  man  has  implied,  as¬ 
sumed  and  sought  to  utilize,  in  all  stages  of  its  existence  ? 
The  question  can  be  answered,  for  there  is  one  constant 
assumption,  made  in  the  first  primeval  spiritual  outreach, 
made  by  all  religions,  and  made  by  Jesus  Christ  himself. 
All  religion  assumes  that  outside  the  range  of  human  life 
there  exists  an  unseen  higher  power,  of  such  character  that  it 
is  right  and  well  for  man  to  look  up  to  it  with  reverence  and 
commit  himself  to  it  with  trust  and  loyalty.  That  man  is  not 
the  highest  being;  that  there  exists  something  or  some  one 
superior  to  him  whereon  it  is  both  worthy  and  profitable  for 
him  to  rely  for  help;  that  without  this  outreach  his  life  is  not 
complete,  and  that  from  that  unseen  region  power  for  good 
can  come  to  him  in  answer  to  seeking — this  is  the  underlying 
creed  in  every  religion  that  ever  laid  its  grasp  upon  the  heart 
of  man.  In  the  apprehension  of  it  there  are  all  possible  de¬ 
grees  of  clearness  and  grades  of  moral  value,  but  in  this  great 
faith  mankind  is  one;  exceptions  are  only  apparent;  and  the 
actual  process  and  work  of  religion  in  all  its  forms  has  been 
the  endeavour  of  man  to  seize  and  utilize  this  invisible  reality 
in  which  he  has  believed.  As  the  eye  has  turned  light  to  the 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


411 


uses  of  life,  so  the  spiritual  in  man  has  sought  to  turn  to  the 
uses  of  life  this  great  reality.  It  has  been  variously  defined, 
or  has  remained  undefined,  but  the  endeavour  to  seize  it  for 
the  due  support  of  an  inalienable  element  in  life  has  been  the 
one  endeavour  of  morality  and  religion  in  every  age. 

In  order  to  complete  this  simple  statement,  and  see  how 
much  it  means,  we  must  note  how  much  of  the  powers  of 
man  has  been  at  work  in  this  great  activity  of  outreaching. 
When  light  is  needed,  only  one  sense  out  of  five  goes  after  it. 
When  reasonable  thought  is  searched  for,  a  larger  part  of  the 
human  energies  is  concerned.  How  is  it  when  man  reaches 
out  after  that  which  under  various  modes  of  naming  he  calls 
God  ?  The  question  cannot  be  answered  completely,  but 
we  can  at  least  see  how  large  the  answer  is. 

Both  in  his  personal  and  in  his  social  character  man  has 
reached  out  after  God.  Of  course,  the  earliest  thought  must 
be  personal,  the  individual  taking  notice;  but  the  first  large 
spiritual  activity  seems  to  have  been  social,  the  group  uniting 
to  express  its  need  and  desire.  The  family,  the  clan,  the 
tribe,  the  nation,  long  acted  upon  the  spiritual  impulse,  be¬ 
fore  the  individual  came  to  regard  himself  as  a  spiritual  fact 
and  centre.  But  his  time  came,  and  continued,  though  the 
time  of  the  social  spiritual  endeavour  was  not  thereby  ter¬ 
minated.  Both  individually  and  socially  mankind  has 
stretched  forth  its  hands  to  the  unseen. 

As  for  the  motive  to  this  perpetual  endeavour,  it  has,  of 
course,  been  various,  but  like  most  great  and  effective  mo¬ 
tives,  it  has  been  mainly  emotional  in  its  nature.  Reflection 
is  naturally  involved  in  the  turning  to  unseen  powers  for 
help,  but  the  call  to  such  action  sounded  in  the  emotional 
region  of  man’s  being.  Whether  the  darker  or  the  brighter 
aspect  of  religion  has  had  the  greater  effect,  and  which  was  the 
original,  we  need  not  here  discuss,  but  both  have  been  in¬ 
tensely  real,  and  both  are  natural.  Fear  was  an  early  motive 
of  tremendous  force.  Man  trembled  with  good  reason  before 
the  vast  forces  of  nature.  He  trembled  before  the  dim  and 


412 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


mysterious,  which  surrounded  him  on  every  side.  With  his 
animal  inheritance  had  come  the  timidity  of  a  weaker  creat¬ 
ure.  It  was  natural  for  him,  himself  self-moved  by  will,  to 
attribute  will  to  the  powers  of  the  world  around  him;  and 
then  the  dread  was  still  more  firmly  grounded.  When  the 
powers  of  nature  did  him  injury,  it  was  natural  to  think  that 
they  were  offended,  and  fear  was  intensified  again.  With  the 
deepening  of  the  moral  sense  deeper  became  the  sense  of  un¬ 
worthiness  in  the  presence  of  higher  powers.  The  sense  of 
sin  did  not  need  to  be  intelligent  in  order  to  be  keen.  So, 
under  the  motive  of  a  highly  complex  fear,  religion  came  to 
be  an  outreach  for  safety,  full  of  deprecation  against  divine 
anger,  labouring  to  propitiate  powers  that  could  destroy  or 
bless.  The  spiritual  in  man,  trembling,  reached  out,  hoping, 
as  it  were,  to  ward  off  the  lightning. 

The  intense  and  painful  sincerity  of  such  an  outreach  is 
plain  at  once.  Through  long  ages  the  upward  reach  was 
doubtless  little  comfort:  how  gladly  then  would  humanity 
have  ceased  from  it  if  it  could !  But  it  could  not.  Even  to  its 
own  sorrow,  humanity  has  steadily  affirmed  the  reality  of  a 
divine  power  of  which  it  had  reason  to  be  afraid. 

The  brighter  aspect  is  real  also.  The  joyful  emotions  reach 
out  to  that  which  is  above.  Sometimes  the  bright  aspect  has 
been  the  dominant  one.  Along  with  dread  of  the  divine  pow¬ 
ers  there  is  gratitude  when  they  have  done  their  kindly  work. 
The  more  harm  they  can  do,  the  brighter  is  the  day  when 
they  do  good.  Whether  it  be  the  forces  of  nature,  or  a  throng 
of  deities,  or  the  only  God,  that  which  is  above  has  been 
credited  with  gifts  of  good,  and  thanksgiving  in  word  and 
deed  has  been  offered  in  return.  The  religion  of  gratitude 
recognizes  divine  operation  in  daily  affairs,  and  gracious 
activity  directed  to  the  inner  life  of  man.  As  religion  ad¬ 
vances  to  finer  spiritual  quality,  a  vital  conception  of  divine 
providence  comes  in,  and  men  rejoice  to  trust  in  divine  guid¬ 
ance,  care  and  protection.  Gratitude  implies  the  acknowl¬ 
edgment  of  life  as  full  of  God;  and  this  interpretation  is  both 
ancient  and  modern,  Christian  and  pagan.  It  is  so  broad 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


413 


and  lasting  that  we  may  fairly  call  it  human.  The  human 
thanks  the  divine. 

With  the  advance  of  moral  life  comes  aspiration,  which 
becomes  an  additional  motive  to  the  great  outreaching. 
Aspiration  is  a  fruit  of  the  spiritual,  but  a  seed-bearing  fruit 
that  brings  harvest  of  the  spiritual  again.  When  worthy 
traits  of  character  are  believed  to  belong  to  the  higher 
power,  aspiration  lays  hold  of  them  with  desire,  and  thus 
becomes  a  promoter  of  that  spiritual  quality  and  life  which 
brought  it  forth.  When  noble  character  is  recognized  in 
God,  a  high  ethical  joy  in  God  comes  in.  At  lower  stages 
the  divine  has  been  so  conceived  that  the  human  gladly  sang 
its  praise,  but  now  in  higher  grades  the  human  is  attuned 
somewhat  to  the  excellence  that  it  discerns  in  God,  and  finds 
the  highest  joy  in  contemplating  his  goodness  and  seeking  to 
be  conformed  thereto.  Now  joyful  hope  springs  up,  hope  of 
acceptance  with  God  and  full  fellowship  with  him  in  a  life  to 
come.  Thus  the  spiritual  is  exalted  to  ever  worthier  forms 
by  reaching  out  with  worthier  estimate  of  that  which  is  above. 

Into  this  great  outreach  of  the  spiritual  there  have  entered 
a  great  variety  of  acts,  and  many  institutions  have  sprung  up 
to  represent  it.  The  characteristic  action  of  the  spiritual  in 
man  is  prayer,  and  prayer  is  a  universal  practice.  Through 
uncounted  ages  the  human  race  has  been  in  the  habit  of  stand¬ 
ing  with  upturned  face,  speaking  out  into  the  unseen.  There 
it  has  poured  out  its  joys  and  sorrows,  confessed  its  sins  and 
sought  forgiveness,  acknowledged  its  benefits  received, 
pleaded  against  the  evils  that  it  dreaded,  laboured  to  avert  the 
divine  anger,  and  adored  the  power  and  goodness  that  it  be¬ 
lieved  to  be  over  all.  Prayer  has  varied  greatly  in  its  depth 
and  breadth,  and  doubtless  there  have  always  been  persons 
who  did  not  pray  at  all,  but  still  the  practice  has  been  so 
general  and  continuous  as  to  be  truly  characteristic  of  man¬ 
kind.  It  has  not  waited  for  any  special  conceptions  or 
theories  of  God,  but  has  risen  from  man  as  he  was  to  God 
as  he  was  conceived,  and  thus  has  borne  the  impress  of  both 


414 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  virtues  and  the  faults  of  humanity.  The  belief  that  man 
could  talk  with  the  unseen  powers  has  made  prayer  to  be  a 
lifelong  habit  of  the  race. 

A  concrete  and  vivid  form  of  prayer  is  sacrifice,  in  which 
the  various  motives  of  prayer  have  found  tangible  expression. 
Offerings  to  God  have  been  expressive  sometimes  of  grat¬ 
itude,  sometimes  of  conscious  guilt,  sometimes  of  the  sense 
of  friendship.  Sometimes  they  have  expressed  the  conviction 
that  between  the  divine  and  the  human  there  existed  a  living 
bond  of  genuine  kinship.  How  positively  all  these  acts  of 
sacrifice  assume  the  invisible  divine  and  lay  hold  upon  it 
with  the  strength  of  human  heart  and  will,  it  is  needless  to 
tell.  Out  of  the  practices  of  prayer  and  sacrifice  have  grown 
up  many  institutions.  There  have  been  forms  of  prayer,  pri¬ 
vate  and  public,  now  simple  and  now  elaborate.  There  have 
been  songs  of  worship  in  every  conceivable  key.  Liturgies 
have  been  wild,  fanatical,  coarse,  drunken,  brutal,  and  they 
have  been  serious,  solemn,  spiritual,  uplifting,  worthy  of  the 
good  God  and  of  the  best  in  man.  There  have  been  places  of 
prayer,  with  modes  of  architecture  adapted  to  their  purpose, 
various  as  the  worships  that  they  enshrine.  There  have  been 
orders  of  praying  men,  priesthoods,  representing  the  people 
in  their  address  to  the  higher  powers,  bringing  their  offerings 
of  gratitude  and  propitiation,  and  proclaiming  the  favour  of 
the  deity  to  his  worshippers.  There  have  been  organizations 
for  promotion  of  religious  life  and  service — churches,  so¬ 
cieties,  monasticisms,  fraternities.  There  have  been  orders  of 
religious  teachers — prophets,  pastors,  guides,  to  bring  mes¬ 
sages  from  God,  and  unfold  the  mysteries  and  show  the  du¬ 
ties  of  religion.  By  all  these  practical  means  humanity  has 
given  effect  to  its  convictions,  and  shown  how  vital  and  irre¬ 
pressible  is  its  outreach  after  divine  realities. 

Implied  in  all  this  group  of  outreaching  activities  is  the 
firm  belief  in  the  fact  of  mutual  intercourse  between  human 
and  divine.  Moving  in  one  direction  this  intercourse  is  wor¬ 
ship:  in  the  other  it  is  inspiration.  It  is  much  if  man  can 
speak  to  God :  it  is  more  if  God  speaks  to  man.  Belief  in 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


415 


both  movements  has  been  general  in  the  race.  Mankind 
has  believed  that  the  invisible  Spirit  inspired  mortal  men 
and  expressed  himself  through  them.  One  may  almost  say 
that  under  the  influence  of  all  religions  the  divine  voice  has 
been  heard  speaking  through  the  human,  and  men  have  ex¬ 
ulted  in  the  consciousness  of  inspiration.  That  the  pro¬ 
ceeding  has  often  been  coarse  and  low  in  its  quality  is  nothing 
against  the  fact.  Men  have  believed  in  such  inspiration  as 
they  were  qualified  to  welcome,  and  it  has  often  been  un¬ 
worthy  of  their  best  manhood.  Even  in  drunkenness  they 
have  thought  themselves  inspired;  and  yet,  at  the  other  ex¬ 
treme,  men  have  heard  the  voice  of  inspiration  uttering  the 
highest  truth  that  they  had  ever  known.  The  point  to  be 
noticed  is  that  the  spiritual  in  man  has  not  merely  reached 
out  in  search  of  an  unseen  spiritual,  but  has  firmly  believed 
that  it  had  grasped  it  and  was  receiving  from  it  actual 
communications. 

It  has  already  been  implied  that  conscience  and  the  moral 
sense  take  part  in  this  great  outreaching.  For  the  develop¬ 
ing  of  the  moral  sense  and  judgment  there  are  sufficient 
means,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  social  life  of  men.  But  when 
the  idea  of  the  divine  has  become  strong  and  vital,  it  is  not 
long  before  morality  demonstrates  its  kinship  with  religion 
and  appears  as  a  part  of  the  great  outreach  to  that  which  is 
above.  The  moral  judgment  comes  to  be  regarded  as  bearing 
a  witness  that  is  more  than  human,  and  conscience  is  felt  to 
be  an  echo  of  the  voice  of  God.  The  divine  will  becomes 
a  standard  of  duty,  the  authority  of  heaven  resides  in  the  de¬ 
mands  of  righteousness,  and  the  moral  quality  of  life  thus 
stands  closely  connected  with  the  moral  quality  in  higher 
being.  All  peoples  and  all  religions  have  something  of  this. 
The  recognized  moral  precepts  may  be  crude  and  partly  false, 
and  the  conception  of  divine  authority  may  be  very  imper¬ 
fect,  and  yet  the  call  of  duty  carries  a  more  than  human  sanc¬ 
tion,  and  morality  is  believed  to  be  grounded  out  of  sight,  in 
divine  realities. 


416 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


To  this  corresponds  the  fact  that  in  early  times  the  laws  of 
many  nations  were  believed  to  have  come  as  a  gift  from 
heaven.  All  kinds  of  law  have  been  regarded  as  ordinances 
of  God.  The  common  rules  of  social  right  have  in  fact  been 
learned  from  experience,  and  are  commended  by  their  prac¬ 
tical  worth;  nevertheless,  they  have  not  been  considered  suf¬ 
ficiently  strong,  except  as  they  were  proclaimed  from  heaven. 
It  was  social  experience  that  first  codified  the  precept,  ^^Thou 
shalt  not  steal,’’  and  yet  for  great  parts  of  mankind  the 
strength  of  this  law  has  resided  in  the  divine  authority  that 
had  proclaimed  it.  ‘‘It  is  God’s  will  that  thou  steal  not”  is 
the  form  in  which  the  command  has  been  felt  to  be  most 
binding.  Government,  an  outgrowth  of  human  experience, 
has  often  been  strongest  with  the  people  because  of  the  belief 
that  it  was  grounded  in  divine  authority.  Justice  is  a  human 
reality,  but  seeks  its  foundations  in  divine  righteousness,  and 
commends  itself  as  an  endeavour  to  do  here  what  is  required 
above.  Common  life  is  full  of  institutions  and  practices  that 
would  not  be  what  they  are  if  the  moral  sense  were  not  seek¬ 
ing  support  in  divine  reality.  In  all  these  ways  does  the 
ethical  element  in  life  claim  its  place  beside  the  religious,  and 
join  it  in  laying  hold  of  that  which  is  above. 

The  intellect  bears  its  part  in  the  great  outreaching  of 
humanity  after  God.  Human  thought  is  far  from  having 
been  altogether  of  this  world :  it  has  been  interested  in  divine 
matters  as  truly  as  in  human,  and  almost  as  long.  The 
abundance  of  early  myths  of  creation  is  enough  to  show  how 
naturally  thought  went  out  beyond  that  which  is  seen.  To 
account  for  existing  things  is  to  enter  the  realm  of  theology, 
and  the  endeavour  to  do  this  has  been  made  by  all  peoples. 
Wonder  has  been  the  mother  of  doctrine,  and  wonder  is  uni¬ 
versal.  Every  religion  has  made  its  efforts  to  solve  the  mys¬ 
teries  of  existence.  The  deepest  thought  has  been  that  of  the 
greatest  and  most  serious  religions,  but  it  is  the  way  of  hu¬ 
man  nature  to  think  of  these  things,  and  the  crudest  religions 
have  had  their  theology,  as  truly  as  the  best.  To  reject  a  cur- 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


417 


rent  theology  is  only  to  make  way  for  another,  for  no  people 
will  be  long  without  one.  The  finest  thought  of  man  has  been 
devoted  to  the  labour  of  knowing  God,  and  will  never  cease 
from  the  divine  quest.  No  vision  can  be  more  impressive 
than  the  vision  of  mankind  in  a  mysterious  world,  instinc¬ 
tively  assuming  that  there  must  be  an  explanation  of  the  mys¬ 
teries,  and  reaching  into  the  unknown  with  eager  thought,  to 
find  eternal  foundations  for  temporal  things.  The  human 
intellect  has  habitually  assumed  that  it  is  natural,  necessary, 
wise  and  profitable  to  seek  for  God. 

Quite  as  important  as  any  element  in  the  case  is  the  fact 
that  character  takes  hold  upon  that  which  is  above,  and  rises 
to  its  best  in  response  to  it.  Character,  with  conduct  its  cor¬ 
relative,  is  indeed  formed  by  means  of  the  human  relations 
and  experiences  of  this  world ;  but  it  does  not  owe  itself  to 
these  alone.  It  has  been  a  common  understanding  that 
character  and  conduct  ought  to  conform  to  standards  derived 
from  the  invisible  world.  This  is  not  merely  a  principle 
of  Hebrew  and  Christian  religion.  All  religions  have  made 
more  or  less  application  of  it,  often  poorly  enough,  but  with 
a  sincerity  that  attested  the  common  belief  in  the  unseen 
standards  of  goodness.  Even  where  all  seemed  most  human 
this  divine  test  has  been  present.  Travellers  have  now  and 
then  reported  certain  low  tribes  as  having  no  religion.  But 
when  acquaintance  had  been  made,  and  suspicion  and  secre¬ 
tiveness  had  been  overcome,  it  was  discovered  that  the  daily 
conduct  of  those  peoples,  so  far  from  being  without  religious 
control,  was  governed  by  religious  considerations,  or  appeal 
to  the  unseen,  even  down  to  the  minutest  details.  Their 
ignorance  may  be  deep,  but  the  work  of  their  life  is  done  in 
the  conscious  presence  of  powers  invisible. 

In  proportion  as  religion  advances  toward  its  best,  the 
transforming  power  of  the  invisible  divine  becomes  more 
effective,  and  character  comes  to  be  touched  by  quality  from 
the  realm  of  divine  purity  and  righteousness  and  love.  The 
finest  character  that  humanity  has  known  has  rested  most 
directly  upon  the  divine  perfection.  There  is  a  stage  of  life  at 


418 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


which  the  ethical  and  religious  elements  combine  at  their 
worthiest  into  that  which  we  have  called  the  spiritual,  which 
now  appears  at  its  best.  When  this  has  occurred,  the  whole 
of  life  is  built  upon  foundations  that  are  out  of  sight.  Man 
has  cast  himself  upon  the  reality  of  divine  being  and  charac¬ 
ter,  assuming  God,  and  putting  belief  in  him  to  daily  use. 
He  adopts  eternal  considerations,  and  turns  them  to  the  pro¬ 
motion  of  all  that  is  best  in  the  life  of  time.  The  spiritual 
rises  to  the  Spiritual.  It  finds  its  standards,  its  inspiration, 
its  comfort  and  its  strength  in  God.  It  takes  hold  on  immor¬ 
tality.  It  brings  forth  the  best  life  that  was  ever  lived.  But 
such  life  is  inspired  from  above.  It  depends  upon  God,  and 
especially  upon  God  as  all-good  and  gracious,  the  true  stand¬ 
ard  for  all  beings.  It  is  not  merely  that  such  life  rests  upon 
conscious  faith  in  such  a  God,  for  that  statement  covers  only 
a  part  of  the  case.  It  rests  upon  the  assumption  of  God  as 
the  foundation  of  morals  and  the  inspiration  of  religion,  and 
comes  as  the  large  response  of  life  to  that  unseen  reality.  The 
power  of  such  response  to  elevate  character,  and  to  create  the 
highest  character  when  God  is  conceived  as  worthiest,  is  con¬ 
firmed  by  long  experience,  and  stands  beyond  the  reach  of 
reasonable  doubt. 

We  have  been  inquiring  how  much  there  is  in  man  that 
reaches  out  to  take  hold  upon  such  unseen  reality  as  we  in¬ 
clude  under  the  name  of  God.  We  find  that  the  human 
emotional  nature  has  always  been  acting  in  view  of  divine 
realities,  darkening  and  brightening  life  by  turns;  that  vast 
practices  in  morals,  religion  and  the  general  life  have  arisen 
in  response  to  divine  existence,  character  and  relations  with 
men;  that  moral  judgment  comes  to  assume  a  divine  stand¬ 
ard  of  good  and  evil;  that  the  intellect  has  taken  boundless 
interest  in  things  that  are  out  of  sight,  and  devoted  itself  to 
eternal  verities;  that  character  and  conduct  have  responded 
to  the  idea  of  divine  will  and  standards,  and  character  is  best 
when  this  conception  is  worthiest.  We  see  that  this  outreach 
to  divine  realities  is  both  ancient  and  modern,  belonging  to 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


419 


the  infancy  of  man  and  to  his  maturer  life;  it  grows  with  his 
growth  and  is  the  companion  of  his  greatness;  when  it  is  best 
he  is  best,  and  the  supreme  destiny  of  the  race  moves  in  uni¬ 
son  with  this  high  quality. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  is  no  mere  exhibition  of 
facts  in  Christian  history.  To  interpret  the  idea  of  religion 
from  Christianity  alone,  though  it  has  often  been  done,  does 
deep  injustice  to  the  human  race.  What  has  here  been 
hinted  at  is  the  story  of  mankind.  In  all  its  religions  and  in 
all  its  ethical  history  the  human  has  thus  been  assuming, 
directly  or  indirectly,  that  the  divine  is  real.  If  there  are 
apparent  exceptions,  they  only  show  that  the  process  has  not 
been  perfect,  or  always  self-consistent.  Buddhism,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  professes  no  knowledge  of  God.  Yet  in  its  doctrine 
of  karma  it  recognizes  an  inflexibly  righteous  order  to  which 
all  existence  is  subject,  and  this  righteous  order  is  the  ground 
on  which  its  peace  is  built.  Faulty  and  perverted  has  the 
process  often  been,  but  the  instinctive,  habitual  and  undying 
practice  of  taking  the  divine  for  a  fact  is  a  main  element  in  the 
history  of  human  kind. 

The  testimony  of  mankind  concerning  the  nature  of  that 
which  it  assumes  may  seem  hopelessly  mixed  and  contra¬ 
dictory.  One  religion  seems  to  be  assuming  one  thing  and 
another  another.  Polytheism,  Pantheism,  Dualism,  Mono¬ 
theism;  nature-forces,  deified  heroes,  gods  of  mixed  charac¬ 
ter,  the  God  of  perfect  goodness;  out  of  this  what  unity  can 
be  brought  forth?  Can  we  tell  what  it  is  that  the  spiritual 
in  man  has  taken  for  true  ? 

Yes,  for  religion  in  all  religions  has  always  meant  one 
thing.  Men  have  always  been  acting  as  if  there  were  some 
unseen  spiritual  power  to  which  it  was  both  right  and  advan¬ 
tageous  for  them  to  commit  themselves  in  trust  and  loyalty. 
This  in  fact  is  exactly  what  men  have  done  through  all  their 
history — they  have  taken  for  granted  a  greatness  and  good¬ 
ness  on  which  it  was  right  and  good  for  them  to  rest.  They 
have  felt  that  reliance  upon  such  a  power  was  a  normal  part 
of  their  life,  and  accordingly  have  had  religion.  The  confi- 


420 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


dence  of  the  soul  in  something  great  and  good  above  is  the 
key  to  the  spiritual  history  of  mankind.  Against  this  the  de¬ 
fects  of  religion  in  the  world,  terrible  as  they  are,  are  no  ob¬ 
jection.  Doubtless  the  one  great  assumption  about  God  has 
been  broken  into  a  multitude  of  apparently  irreconcilable 
beliefs.  That  was  because  human  limitation,  ignorance  and 
sin  came  in  to  injure  and  corrupt  the  conception  of  the  higher 
power.  Men  were  not  wise  or  good  enough  to  discover  what 
kind  of  Being  God  must  be,  and  so  they  misconceived  him  in 
all  possible  ways,  determining  their  conceptions  of  him 
through  their  own  littleness,  or  immaturity,  or  sinfulness. 
Religion  has  had  innumerable  forms,  and  been  degraded  in 
ways  without  number,  all  because  men  were  not  competent 
to  have  it  otherwise.  Nevertheless,  through  all  the  forms  and 
modes  has  sounded  the  one  great  affirmation — man  is  not 
the  highest  being,  and  there  is  a  power  above  in  which  it  is 
right  and  good  for  him  to  put  his  trust. 

How  much  this  sounds  like  the  Christian  doctrine! — only 
this  is  the  bare  statement,  while  the  Christian  doctrine  in¬ 
cludes  the  rich  unfolding.  The  Christian  word  is  simply  that 
there  does  exist  a  Being  so  great  and  good  that  all  other  beings 
ought  to  live  in  view  of  him,  and  are  blest  only  when  they  do. 
The  spiritual  in  mankind  has  always  blindly  and  gropingly 
acted  as  if  this  were  true,  and  sometimes  more  intelligently, 
often  missing  the  real  character  but  never  giving  up  the  claim 
that  religion  has  a  worthy  ground.  The  Christian  doctrine 
confirms  the  claim  and  fills  out  its  meaning,  by  revelation  of 
the  eternal  goodness  in  the  living  God.  It  says  to  all  people, 
*‘What  therefore  ye  worship  in  ignorance,  this  I  set  forth 
unto  you”  (Acts  xvii.  23).  It  tells  men  that  their  primary 
assumption  is  far  more  gloriously  true  than  they  could  dream, 
and  shows  them  what  their  aspirations  signify.  Setting  forth 
the  spiritual  glory  of  God  in  Christ,  it  offers  satisfaction  to  the 
longings  that  have  made  religion  a  part  of  the  universal  life. 

Returning  now  to  the  fact  that  this  great  assertion  of  the 
worth  and  rightfulness  of  religion  has  been  made  by  the 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


421 


general  race  of  man,  we  must  ask  what  is  the  best  explanation 
of  it.  Why  should  this  higher  element  in  human  nature  be 
always  throwing  itself  out  upon  higher  powers  as  if  they  ex¬ 
isted  ?  Why  has  mankind  acted  as  if  there  were  some  power 
above  it  that  could  satisfy  its  deepest  needs?  If  there  were 
no  good  power  above  man,  religion  would  be  folly;  why  has 
it  been  taken  for  granted  that  it  is  not  ? 

The  simple  and  obvious  explanation  is  that  the  as¬ 
sumption  is  true.  No  other  explanation  can  compare  with 
this  in  reasonableness:  in  fact,  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
any  other  can  be  found  that  is  worthy  to  be  brought  into 
comparison  with  this  at  all.  The  phenomena  to  be  ac¬ 
counted  for  are  too  vast  to  be  covered  by  any  special  theory 
or  matched  by  any  laboured  explanation.  Great  character¬ 
istic  movements  of  mankind  have  their  justification  in  the 
simplicity  of  truth.  Special  theories  of  how  man  became  re¬ 
ligious  may  be  dispensed  with.  The  seeming  realities  that 
have  produced  religion  are  realities  indeed:  religion  had  to 
exist,  for  there  was  ground  for  it  in  the  nature  of  things: 
reality  justifies  it  and  calls  it  out.  That  there  is  a  worthy 
God  above  is  no  wild  guess,  it  is  a  fact,  and  religion  is  the 
response  of  mankind  to  it.  The  spiritual  has  been  right  in 
rising  to  meet  the  Spiritual. 

We  are  justified  in  including  the  perfect  goodness  of 
God  in  the  fact  that  religion  has  assumed.  The  One  who  ex¬ 
ists  is  not  such  a  being  as  this  or  that  religion  discerned  and 
proclaimed.  The  fact  that  men  believed  in  Zeus  or  Vishnu 
does  not  prove  that  Zeus  or  Vishnu  was  in  existence.  That 
men  have  held  a  Christian  doctrine  of  God  does  not  prove 
that  God  is  like  the  doctrine.  What  religion  really  implies 
and  has  always  implied  is  the  existence  of  One  who  is  abso¬ 
lutely  worthy  to  be  addressed  as  God  by  all  beings,  sufficient 
to  satisfy  all  needs,  entitled  to  all  confidence  and  loyalty. 
Only  the  existence  of  such  a  God  would  redeem  religion 
from  being  false  and  foolish.  The  only  reasonable  explana¬ 
tion  of  universal  religion  is  that  there  is  such  a  Being,  and 
mankind  has  been  feeling  after  him  to  find  him.  All  races 


422 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


have  perceived  some  truth  concerning  him,  but  all  have 
missed  him  in  part,  and  many  have  missed  him  deplorably. 
Nevertheless,  his  existence  is  the  true  explanation  of  their 
upward  gaze. 

For  if  this  is  not  so,  and  there  is  no  such  God,  then  there 
is  a  part  of  the  human  endowment  that  has  nothing  beyond 
itself  to  correspond  to  it.  There  is  no  spiritual  without  to 
match  the  spiritual  within.  There  is  no  superhuman  right, 
and  no  divine  reality.  There  is  no  higher  authority,  power 
or  fellowship.  That  element  in  human  nature  which  has 
persistently  made  man  religious  is  a  false  element.  It  has 
acted  all  these  ages  without  just  cause,  for  it  has  risen  to  meet 
that  which  never  existed.  The  powers  that  make  religion 
universal  evidently  belong  to  the  human  outfit,  and  yet  there 
is  absolutely  nothing  to  justify  religion.  Moreover,  these 
powers  that  have  no  counterpart  constitute  no  slight  or  minor 
part  of  man.  They  are  the  powers  in  which  he  has  always 
felt  that  his  chief  significance  resided.  It  is  in  them  that  he 
differs  most  from  all  that  is  below  him,  and  has  seemed  to 
himself  to  be  one  with  the  infinite  above  him.  In  them  has 
arisen  his  hope  of  immortality.  But  in  fact  they  lead  him 
nowhither.  There  is  nothing  for  them  to  take  hold  upon. 
He  has  attuned  his  conscience  to  a  divine  standard  that  did 
not  exist,  and  shrunk  in  fear  from  a  divine  power  that  was 
not.  He  has  prayed  when  there  was  no  one  to  hear,  and  re¬ 
joiced  in  divine  inspiration,  protection  and  salvation  which 
had  no  existence.  He  has  framed  the  affections,  institutions 
and  customs  of  his  life  to  correspond  to  a  relation  that  existed 
only  in  his  own  mistaken  mind.  In  a  word,  he  has  furnished 
the  earth  to  match  an  inhabited  heaven,  when  the  heaven 
was  empty  from  everlasting  to  everlasting.  And  this  he  has 
done  by  an  abiding  impulse  of  his  nature  that  was  as  genu¬ 
ine  a  part  of  himself  as  his  eyesight  or  his  memory. 

This  is  very  difficult  to  believe.  In  fact,  it  is  incredible.  Va¬ 
rious  reasons  might  be  given  for  saying  so,  but  a  sufficient 
reason  is  that  such  a  condition  of  things  would  be  utterly 
unlike  everything  else  that  we  know.  The  proposition  does 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


423 


not  correspond  to  the  character  of  the  world.  Everything 
else  proceeds  on  a  different  principle.  If  the  spiritual  in  man 
is  thus  astray  in  its  primary  assertion,  the  fact  stands  as 
a  great  contradictory  exception  in  the  nature  of  things:  and 
a  great  contradictory  exception  in  the  nature  of  things  can¬ 
not  be  permanently  believed  in. 

Every  other  power  of  human  nature  has  something  to  cor¬ 
respond  to  it,  and  to  support  and  justify  its  existence.  Each 
bodily  sense  has  its  corresponding  reality:  the  eye  has  light 
and  the  ear  has  sound,  and  the  sense  of  touch  is  simply  the 
correspondence  of  the  living  man  to  the  environment  that 
touches  him.  The  counterparts  are  as  real  as  the  powers. 
So  our  intellect,  as  we  have  seen,  has  its  counterpart  and 
support  in  the  intellectual  order  and  method  of  the  universe. 
The  rational  man  and  the  rational  world  fit  each  other. 
Steady  and  trustworthy  life  is  possible  because  every  power 
of  body  and  mind  thus  has  its  true  and  trusty  counterpart  in 
the  world.  In  bodily  life,  health  consists  in  normal  relation 
to  surrounding  conditions.  In  mental  life,  sanity  consists  in 
harmony  with  the  universal  reason,  and  insanity  in  inability 
to  act  in  unity  with  the  order  of  the  world. 

If  there  is  no  good  God,  so  that  the  moral  and  religious 
nature  has  no  trustworthy  counterpart  or  supporting  fact, 
we  can  only  say  that  the  moral  and  religious  part  of  the  hu¬ 
man  experience  is  radically  unlike  all  the  rest.  The  recogni¬ 
tion  of  its  counterpart  by  the  spiritual  in  man  has  been  quite 
as  steady,  sincere  and  practical  as  the  recognition  of  their 
counterparts  by  sight  and  hearing  and  intelligence.  All  that 
we  know  of  the  reasonable  processes  of  our  life  goes  to  assure 
us  of  the  validity  of  all  these  acts  alike,  of  one  as  truly  as  of 
another.  There  appears  no  reason  for  doubting  the  moral 
and  religious  counterpart,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  any 
valid  reason  for  a  doubt  so  radical  could  exist.  It  is  not  ra¬ 
tionally  possible  to  rule  out  the  moral  and  religious  part  of 
our  being  from  the  method  that  governs  all  other  parts  of  our 
life.  This  is  the  strongest  reason  that  we  could  have  for  be¬ 
ing  sure  of  our  primary  religious  convictions.  We  might  be 


424 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


most  unwilling  to  feel  that  our  moral  and  religious  powers 
were  unsupported  and  misleading,  and  yet  be  aware  that 
our  feeling  did  not  settle  the  question  of  fact.  Many 
believers  in  God  are  precisely  in  this  situation,  and  are 
deeply  troubled  lest  their  confidence  in  religion  be  taken 
away  from  them.  But  the  conclusive  argument  is  that  the 
well-tested  structure  of  the  world  is  against  any  godless  sup¬ 
position.  Human  experience,  ages  long,  is  experience  of 
living  among  facts;  and  unless  experience  in  religion  is  one 
long  contradictory  exception,  which  we  cannot  hold,  the 
facts  that  are  necessary  to  religion  can  be  trusted  as  safely 
as  the  facts  upon  which  the  other  experiences  of  our  life  are 
built.  And  the  first  fact  essential  to  religion  is  a  God  so 
great  and  good  that  religion  is  normal,  necessary  and  bene¬ 
ficial  to  men. 

The  whole  truth,  however,  is  not  that  the  human  powers 
have  something  to  correspond  to  them  in  the  world  around. 
This  even  greater  thing  is  true,  that  the  human  powers  have 
grown  up  in  response  to  the  realities  by  which  they  were  sur¬ 
rounded.  Senses  and  mental  powers  were  not  the  first  things 
to  exist:  they  were  developed  through  contact  with  corre¬ 
sponding  realities  that  were  here  before  them.  There  was 
a  world  into  which  life  in  due  time  entered.  Life  is  that 
mysterious  something  which  is  able  to  turn  things  outside  of 
itself  to  its  own  inner  uses.  It  has  responded  to  surrounding 
realities  by  utilizing  them,  but  first,  and  still  more  wonder¬ 
fully,  by  developing  means  for  utilizing  them.  This  is  the 
manner  in  which  science  now  holds  that  the  working  powers 
of  life,  the  senses  and  the  faculties,  came  into  being.  They 
were  developed  by  life,  to  meet  its  own  necessities.  They  are 
due  on  the  one  hand  to  the  marvellous  power  resident  in  life 
itself,  and  on  the  other  to  the  equally  marvellous  material 
that  life  had  to  work  upon. 

Nothing  more  wonderful  will  ever  be  conceived  than  the 
method  in  which  life  obtained  its  effective  working  organs. 
The  living  thing  was  surrounded  on  every  side  by  material 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


425 


objects,  and  life  provided  it  with  a  sensitive  internal  structure 
whereby  it  could  feel  its  contact  with  them.  Thus,  through 
the  sense  of  touch,  life  established  conscious  connections  with 
the  world.  In  the  invisible  element  around  there  was  a  cer¬ 
tain  set  of  vibrations,  resulting  in  what  we  know  as  light;  and 
life  proceeded  gradually  to  develop  an  organ  through  which 
those  vibrations  were  utilized  for  its  purposes  through  vision, 
without  which  life  could  never  have  made  its  normal  ad¬ 
vance.  Life,  seizing  what  was  about  it,  turned  its  own  dark¬ 
ness  into  light.  In  the  same  surrounding  element  there  was 
another  set  of  vibrations,  producing  what  we  know  as  sound ; 
and  life  went  on  to  form  another  organ  through  which  these 
entered  into  its  own  habitation  to  serve  the  purpose  of  hear¬ 
ing,  without  which  again  it  would  have  been  at  infinite  dis¬ 
advantage.  Thus  life  dispelled  the  silence  in  which  it  was 
born.  There  were  qualities  exhaling  from  various  objects  in 
the  world,  and  life  built  up  organs  whereby  they  came  to  serve 
needs  of  its  own,  represented  by  the  names  of  taste  and 
smell.  Thus  life  ministered  to  its  own  nourishment  and  en¬ 
joyment  by  appropriating  qualities  that  were  floating  in  the 
air.  Words  cannot  tell  how  wonderful  this  is,  but  this  is 
what  has  occurred.  Light  and  the  eye  were  not  created  inde¬ 
pendently  of  each  other,  but  the  formation  of  the  eye  was  the 
response  of  life  to  the  fact  of  light. 

Here  we  must  recall  that  the  mental  powers  were  devel¬ 
oped  on  the  same  principle.  When  life  had  brought  sensa¬ 
tion,  experience  of  sensation  developed  the  power  of  judg¬ 
ment,  and  set  the  intellect  at  work.  Intellect  as  well  as 
sensation  was  developed  in  response  to  kindred  qualities  in 
the  world  around.  Our  race  owes  itself  intellectually  to  the 
intellectual  quality  inwrought  to  the  world  in  which  it  has 
been  reared.  The  changeless  and  yet  ever-changing  order  of 
the  starry  heavens  moving  in  silent  majesty  across  the  night 
was  a  main  educator  of  early  mankind,  and  it  was  the  intel¬ 
lectual  quality  above  that  trained  the  same  below.  As  the 
successful  working  of  our  senses  is  proof  of  the  reality  of  those 
elements  in  the  world  to  which  they  make  response,  so  the 


426 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


successful  operation  of  our  rational  powers  is  proof  of  the  ra¬ 
tional  quality  in  the  world  that  educated  them.  And  both 
these  proofs  were  pledged  when  life  was  born ;  for  life  was  of 
such  nature  that  it  could  not  have  continued  without  that  use 
of  outward  things,  both  material  and  rational,  which  serves 
as  proof  that  the  outward  things  exist. 

When  life  had  advanced  to  the  rational  stage,  its  spiritual 
necessities  came  on,  and  life  sought  satisfaction  for  them  in 
the  same  old  way.  As  before,  it  laid  hold  upon  existing  reality 
outside  of  itself.  The  rising  powers  adapted  to  morality  and 
religion  ascended  seeking  a  worthy  object  above  the  human 
realm.  The  outreach  after  God  was  a  third  outreach  in 
a  natural  succession;  or  rather,  it  was  a  third  simultaneous 
with  the  second.  It  was  just  as  genuine  an  expression  of  the 
nature  of  life  as  the  outreach  after  light  and  sound,  or  after 
reason.  When  life  has  come  to  the  stage  of  man,  it  reaches 
out  for  God:  that  is  its  nature  and  necessity,  for  man  needs 
God  above  himself.  When  life  was  born,  the  birth  of  relig¬ 
ion  was  pledged  and  certain,  just  as  truly  as  the  life  of  sen¬ 
sation  or  of  intellect.  It  came  necessarily  to  pass  that  men 
assumed  the  existence  of  some  Being  who  could  adequately 
satisfy  their  spiritual  needs,  so  that  life  with  him  would  be 
their  highest  good. 

In  the  other  cases,  the  object  sought  by  life  was  there  to  be 
seized  upon,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that  in  the 
last  case  it  was  the  same.  Life  has  not  reached  out  for  sup¬ 
port  where  there  was  nothing.  We  have  obtained  our  moral 
and  religious  nature  through  the  response  of  life  to  the  reality 
of  God.  According  to  the  analogy  of  other  experience  we 
are  entitled  to  say  that  the  reality  of  God  is  implied  in  the 
spiritual  in  man,  as  the  reality  of  light  is  implied  in  vision. 
Light  is  as  real  as  the  power  that  seizes  upon  it,  and  so  is 
God.  He  was  there,  and  the  soul  corresponded  to  him, 
wherefore  the  impulse  to  trust,  worship  and  communion  arose. 
The  idea  of  goodness  and  right  came  into  life  because  good¬ 
ness  and  right  were  already  existent  in  the  Being  to  whom 
humanity  was  correlative.  Men  felt  that  they  were  depen- 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAI 


427 


dent  upon  a  higher  power,  because  they  were  dependent:  they 
felt  that  God  was  expressed  in  the  world,  because  he  was 
there  expressed :  they  spoke  to  him,  because  he  was  there  to 
be  spoken  to,  and  thought  he  could  breathe  his  spirit  into 
them,  because  he  could.  They  were  impelled  to  obey  him, 
because  the  real  authority  of  eternal  right  was  there.  They 
built  morality  and  religion  into  their  life,  because  God  the 
eternal  foundation  of  morality  and  religion  was  the  foundation 
of  their  life.  They  sinned,  not  because  there  was  sin  in  God, 
but  because  they  failed  to  live  up  to  the  best  they  knew. 
They  misjudged  God,  because  of  their  ignorance,  their  im¬ 
maturity  and  their  evil  choice,  no  one  of  these  elements  being 
absent  from  the  case;  but  even  in  their  ignorance  and  sin,  by 
which  morals  and  religion  were  kept  low  in  quality,  their  life 
was  always  an  answer,  though  a  poor  one,  to  the  reality  of 
God. 

The  long  imperfectness  of  this  process  is  no  argument 
against  it.  The  eye  is  adapted  to  the  light,  but  it  was  long  in 
becoming  adapted,  and  the  adaptation  is  not  perfect  yet;  but 
no  one  questions  the  adaptation  because  of  the  early  imper¬ 
fection  of  the  organ.  High  and  fine  rational  processes  are 
normal  to  mankind,  and  are  trustworthy  when  they  come; 
and  no  one  doubts  them  because  primitive  immaturity  was 
capable  only  of  imperfect  judgment.  So  the  spiritual  life  of 
the  race  has  long  been  sadly  low  and  poor,  and  still  continues 
so;  but  that  is  no  reason  for  denying  that  the  race  was  all  the 
time  taking  hold,  though  imperfect  hold,  upon  the  great 
divine  reality.  Nay,  the  very  length  and  patience  of  the 
process,  in  spite  of  its  own  defects,  renders  the  responsive  na¬ 
ture  of  it  all  the  more  certain  and  impressive.  Humanity  has 
not  grown  by  adequately  understanding  the  things  by  which 
it  grew.  It  took  hold  of  them  long  before  it  understood  them, 
and  was  growing  by  means  of  them  before  it  even  knew  what 
they  were.  The  imperfectness  has  been  in  man,  not  in  God. 
He  has  always  been  the  same,  and  religion  in  all  its  stages  has 
been  the  genuine  but  partial  human  answer  to  the  call  of  his 
great  presence. 


428 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


We  must  remember  again  how  great  and  simple  is  the 
truth  implied  in  the  religious  outreach.  If  we  looked  merely 
at  the  great  variety  of  religious  manifestations,  it  might  ap¬ 
pear  that  humanity  had  been  reaching  out  uncertainly  into 
the  dark,  and  that  by  reason  of  its  indefiniteness  the  outreach 
signified  nothing.  But  the  truth  is  rather  that  humanity  has 
always  been  acting  on  the  principle  that  religion  is  justified 
by  the  facts.  It  has  assumed  that  it  was  worth  while  to  seek 
an  everlasting  foundation  for  the  life  of  the  soul.  Every  re¬ 
ligious  outreach  has  assumed  not  only  that  there  was  some¬ 
thing  in  the  spiritual  realm  that  could  be  laid  hold  of,  but 
that  there  existed  something,  real  and  ultimately  attainable 
by  man,  in  which  the  spiritual  needs  and  aspirations  can 
find  full  and  worthy  satisfaction.  Every  man  needs  the  whole 
of  God,  and  all  religion  implies  the  whole  of  God.  If  religion 
as  a  whole  is  not  a  delusion,  there  must  exist  a  living  God  so 
great  and  good  that  in  him  all  spiritual  needs  may  find  full 
satisfaction.  That  is  to  say,  in  language  that  has  been  used 
already,  the  evidence  from  the  spiritual  in  the  human  race 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that,  unless  life  is  a  lie,  there  lives 
a  God  of  all  goodness,  adequate  to  all  the  spiritual  necessities 
of  men.  The  evidence  from  the  spiritual  confirms  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Jesus  Christ. 

We  may  still  wonder  that  the  good  God,  if  he  exists,  should 
leave  his  children  so  long  in  poor  and  unsatisfactory  spiritual 
life.  The  vastness  of  the  race,  the  seriousness  of  its  destinies, 
and  the  pitiableness  of  its  long  infancy,  overwhelm  us.  It 
may  seem  incredible  that  he  created  a  race  to  grope  after  him 
so  long  and  find  him  so  slowly,  if  indeed  it  finds  him  at  all. 
Can  this  be  the  method  of  a  good  God  ?  It  certainly  is  the 
fact  that  the  slow  unfolding  of  religious  nature,  with  all  that 
must  attend  upon  it,  is  what  we  have  to  accept.  Like  the  eye 
and  the  hand,  the  soul  has  developed  slowly.  We  cannot 
escape  perplexity  by  denying  the  facts.  If  we  believe  in  God 
we  believe  that  he  has  always  been  God,  and  to  him  we  must 
attribute  the  method  of  the  world  and  life.  He  has  made  no 


EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  SPIRITUAL 


429 


great  thing  except  by  giving  it  time  to  grow,  and  the  spiritual 
life  of  his  offspring  is  no  exception.  Hence,  long  childhood 
and  long  childishness. 

The  Christian  explanation  of  this  mystery  rests  not  on  dem¬ 
onstration,  but  on  the  conviction  to  which  all  the  spiritual 
realities  lead.  It  has  been  implied  already.  From  the  spiritual 
in  man  we  have  drawn  the  evidence  that  there  exists  a  Being 
who  is  able  to  do  full  justice  to  all  spiritual  necessities,  a 
God  sufficient,  so  great  and  good  as  to  satisfy  all  human 
needs  and  possibilities.  It  is  our  privilege  to  accept  this  great 
conclusion  in  its  full  force  and  significance.  We  are  per¬ 
plexed  because  we  do  not  recognize  in  the  living  God  that 
perfect  goodness  which  we  ascribe  to  him.  We  do  not  do 
him  justice.  A  God  sufficient  to  humanity,  such  as  is  im¬ 
plied  in  all  spiritual  experience  of  man,  is  good  enough  to  be 
trusted  with  all  human  affairs  and  interests  whatever.  A 
good  God  must  be  good  enough  to  be  trusted  not  merely 
with  the  destinies  of  the  well-ripened  saints:  he  must  be  good 
enough  to  be  trusted  with  the  destinies  of  the  slowly-ripening 
world  of  men,  and  of  all  the  half-developed  souls  that  such 
a  world  has  contained.  The  constitutional  outreach  of  hu¬ 
man  life  implies  a  God  of  comprehensive  and  particularizing 
goodness,  whose  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works,  and 
who  forsakes  not  the  works  of  his  own  hands;  and  such 
a  God  lives,  from  everlasting  to  everlasting.  The  living  God 
can  be  relied  upon  to  do  the  right  and  best  for  the  whole  of 
that  which  he  has  brought  into  existence.  This  is  the  con¬ 
clusion  from  what  we  know  of  the  spiritual  in  man,  this  is 
true  if  we  live  in  an  honest  world,  and  this  is  the  doctrine 
that  we  learn  when  we  sit  at  the  feet  of  Jesus. 

In  pursuance  of  this  conviction  the  Christian  doctrine  has 
always  held  that  the  good  God  would  certainly  reveal  himself 
to  his  creatures.  This  is  a  true  utterance  of  the  Christian 
heart,  which  bodies  forth  that  principle  of  faith  in  the  eternal 
goodness  which  lies  at  the  heart  of  all  worthy  religion.  Our 
faith  would  confidently  affirm  it,  too,  in  view  of  the  pathetic 
spectacle  of  the  worshipping  world,  a  spectacle  always  under 


430 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  eye  of  God.  Accordingly  the  Christian  faith  has  wel¬ 
comed  the  Bible  with  its  divine  self-revealings,  and  cherished 
it  as  worthy  to  have  come  from  God.  This  is  what  we  might 
expect  of  the  good  Being,  it  has  said,  that  he  would  reveal 
himself  as  he  did  to  Abraham  and  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
and  above  all  as  he  has  done  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  expres¬ 
sive  of  his  inmost  heart.  God  and  men  being  what  they  are, 
this  revelation  is  the  very  gift  that  we  might  expect. 

This  is  entirely  true,  and  every  one  who  knows  the  Christian 
revelation  ought  to  think  thus  gratefully  and  loyally  of  God 
from  whom  it  came.  By  the  same  loyal  reasoning  more  is 
true,  and  a  conclusion  already  recorded  here  meets  us 
again.  It  is  time  for  Christians  to  cease  to  limit  God^s  direct 
spiritual  operation  toward  men  to  that  which  the  Bible  re¬ 
cords.  The  idea  of  a  self-communicating  action  of  God 
toward  the  human  race  as  a  race  of  spirits  has  never  yet 
taken  its  due  place  in  Christian  thought.  At  this  we  must 
not  wonder,  for  until  recently  there  has  been  no  adequate 
conception  of  the  human  race  as  a  whole,  in  its  age,  extent 
and  variety.  But  at  present  we  know  that  Abraham  was 
a  member  of  no  infant  race,  that  the  Hebrew  period  is  far  down 
in  the  human  career,  and  that  a  vast  part  of  mankind  has 
never  been  considered  in  our  estimates  of  the  sufficiency  of 
revelation.  People  after  people  has  lived  and  vanished  wholly 
untouched  by  the  revealing  God,  if  his  self-imparting  action 
is  limited  to  the  Bible,  and  through  the  Bible  he  has  influ¬ 
enced  only  a  minor  part  even  of  the  later  race.  There  exists 
a  relation  of  the  one  God  to  the  one  humanity;  and  the  argu¬ 
ment  for  the  probability  of  the  revelation  in  the  Bible  stands 
equally  as  an  argument  for  much  more.  As  that  revelation 
might  be  expected  from  a  good  God,  so  also  might  a  wider 
work.  We  should  expect  such  a  God  to  be  self-communicat¬ 
ing  toward  all  spiritual  beings  of  his  own  creation,  as  we 
have  already  found  reason  for  believing  that  he  is.  Such  a 
God  of  universal  scope  is  the  One  in  whom  the  spiritual  ele¬ 
ment  in  man  leads  us  to  believe, — a  God  to  whom  human 
nature  makes  response  because  he  has  created  it  responsive 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


431 


to  himself,  and  who  responds  to  it  in  turn  when  it  appeals  to 
him.  Such  a  God  of  universal  scope  we  discern  when  we 
look  upon  the  divine  reality  in  the  light  of  Christ.  He  is 
a  God  who  does  not  leave  to  itself  the  spiritual  nature  that  he 
has  created,  but  stands  toward  it  self-imparting. 

When  we  have  uttered  such  a  truth  as  this,  we  must  be 
faithful  to  it.  We  must  freely  allow  the  spiritual  in  man  to 
teach  us  its  lesson.  It  stands  as  a  fair  conclusion  that  in  all 
human  rationality  and  moral  sense  God  himself  is  dealing 
with  men,  so  that  every  voice  of  truth  and  righteousness  that 
they  hear  is  his,  and  that  in  creating  man  to  lift  his  heart 
above  he  has  become  responsible  for  a  religious  outreach 
which  he  does  not  neglect.  The  true  light  that  lighteth  every 
man  is  the  perpetual  gift  of  God.  And  we  may  record  with 
joy  that  he  whose  reality  is  thus  taught  us  by  the  general 
human  experience  is  the  same  God  who  is  known  in  fuller 
manifestation  as  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ. 

4.  THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 

Thus  far  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  has  been  presented 
without  explicit  reference  to  the  great  objection  that  is  brought 
against  it.  So  worthy  and  self-commending  does  it  appear 
in  itself  that  it  might  seem  to  be  a  calmly  optimistic  doctrine, 
untroubled  by  oppositions.  But  it  is  met  by  doubt  and  de¬ 
nial,  and  even  for  those  who  hold  it  steadfastly  and  count  it 
their  chief  joy  it  is  embarrassed  by  questionings,  and  the 
grounds  of  difficulty  are  so  obvious  that  they  cannot  be  over¬ 
looked.  No  presentation  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God 
can  be  satisfactory  that  does  not  consider  the  great  objection. 

Broadly  stated,  the  objection  is  that  this  world  which  we 
know  is  a  very  hard  world  in  which  to  believe  in  the  good 
God  whom  the  Christian  doctrine  sets  forth  as  the  one  God 
of  all.  Experience,  it  is  said,  cries  out  against  the  belief. 
Facts  condemn  it.  The  general  method  of  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  the  world — if  there  be  an  administration — does  not 
correspond  to  the  character  that  is  attributed  to  God  in  the 


432 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Christian  doctrine,  and  there  are  important  special  facts  that 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  such  a  character.  In  the  philoso¬ 
phy  of  pessimism  this  denial  is  made  at  the  strongest  and 
pressed  to  the  uttermost,  and  all  the  way  this  side  of  that  ex¬ 
treme  are  ranged  the  various  denials,  doubts  and  questionings 
that  are  suggested  by  common  life.  And  no  one  can  live  in 
the  world  without  knowing  that  the  difhculties  are  real,  and  the 
objection  is  not  to  be  attributed  entirely  to  sinful  unbelief. 

The  objection  appears  in  three  forms.  They  cannot  be 
kept  entirely  distinct  from  one  another,  or  presented  without 
some  anticipation  of  matters  yet  to  be  stated,  and  yet  they 
are  so  far  distinct  as  best  to  be  set  forth  separately. 

First  stands  the  broad  assertion  that  the  order  of  the  world 
does  not  bear  the  marks  of  being  an  order  directed  by  a  per¬ 
sonal  will,  certainly  not  by  such  a  personal  will  as  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  attributes  to  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus.  It  is 
not  directed  by  a  personal  will  at  all,  the  modern  judgment 
often  declares,  in  the  light  of  modern  knowledge.  It  is  a  vast 
machine,  working  right  on  by  forces  inherent  in  itself,  and 
bringing  forth  whatever  results  are  implied  in  existing  ante¬ 
cedents.  That  any  will  directs  it  is  declared  to  be  both  un- 
provable,  and  improbable  in  the  highest  degree.  If  there  is 
any  will,  it  is  represented  by  force,  not  by  character.  Im¬ 
partiality  is  the  law.  The  system  moves  on  regardless  of  all, 
making  no  exceptions  for  the  sake  of  any.  It  never  forgives, 
but  exacts  to  the  uttermost  the  penalty  of  resistance  to  its 
method,  whether  the  act  be  blameworthy  or  innocent.  It 
moves  on  through  a  great  progressive  unfolding,  in  which 
ascending  life  proves  to  be  the  portion  of  the  few,  and  decline 
or  defeat  the  destiny  of  the  many.  It  has  no  help  for  the 
weak.  Its  movement  is  without  mercy,  abandoning  to  their 
fate  all  who  fail  to  keep  up  with  the  pace.  To  the  single  life 
and  to  the  type  nature  seems  alike  indifferent.  In  all  this, 
even  if  there  are  signs  of  will,  there  are  no  signs  of  that  ten¬ 
der  affection  and  helpfulness,  that  brooding  care,  that  right¬ 
eous  oversight,  that  interest  in  those  who  sin  and  fail,  which 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


433 


Jesus  so  insistently  attributes  to  the  God  of  all.  The  system 
is  heartless,  and  “Where  is  now  thy  God?’’  many  an  ob¬ 
server  of  the  world-order  feels  that  he  has  a  right  to  ask.  In 
this  indictment  there  may  be  misunderstanding  and  exaggera¬ 
tion,  and  it  may  rest  upon  a  partial  view  of  the  facts,  but  it 
cannot  be  put  out  of  court  as  groundless.  There  is  truth  in 
this  form  of  the  plea  that  this  is  a  hard  world  in  which  to 
believe  in  the  good  God. 

The  second  form  of  the  objection  is  perhaps  a  specification 
under  the  first,  but  its  special  character  gives  it  a  power  of 
its  own.  It  is  a  protest  to  which  written  words  can  do  no 
justice.  The  world  is  full  of  suffering,  and  the  amount  of  it 
is  inconceivable.  No  one  escapes  it,  or  can  escape.  Trouble 
is  everywhere.  There  is  physical  pain,  and  there  is  mental 
anguish,  both  in  endless  variety.  The  suffering  is  not  dis¬ 
tributed  according  to  desert,  for  no  attention  appears  to  be 
paid  to  merit  or  demerit  when  it  comes.  While  it  is  true  that 
sin  brings  misery  to  the  sinner,  it  is  equally  true  that  it  often 
brings  keener  misery  to  the  sinner’s  virtuous  friends,  and  that 
its  agonizing  results  are  scattered  at  random  through  the 
world.  Trouble  comes  by  inheritance,  where  there  can  be  no 
question  of  personal  desert,  and  through  associations  that  in¬ 
volve  no  guilt.  The  complications  of  suffering  are  often  so 
terrible  and  seemingly  unjust  as  to  appear  as  if  they  must  have 
been  invented  by  an  infinitely  ingenious  hatred.  The  aston¬ 
ishing  sufferings  of  human  kind  have  long  been  the  theme  of 
wonder  and  the  text  of  unbelief,  but  now  comes  modern  knowl¬ 
edge,  extending  far  the  scope  of  the  problem.  The  race  is  far 
older  than  we  thought,  and  its  earlier  stages  of  life,  so  far  as  we 
can  see,  have  been  such  as  to  intensify  rather  than  relieve  our 
perplexity.  Moreover,  it  has  always  been  known  that  our 
lower  companions  in  life  were  sharers  in  our  lot  of  suffering, 
the  animal  world  being  full  of  pain,  with  no  moral  ground  so 
much  as  suggested  for  so  great  a  fact — for  the  old  doctrine 
that  animal  suffering  was  inflicted  because  of  human  sin  was 
only  an  intellectual  guess,  not  an  ethical  suggestion.  But 
now  we  catch  glimpses  of  an  immeasurably  long  course  of 


434 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


animal  life  before  man  appeared,  and  learn  that  all  its  ages 
have  been  as  full  of  pain  as  the  present  time.  Ever  since  it 
came  to  be  what  we  call  animate  existence,  life  has  brought 
pain  as  well  as  pleasure — pleasure,  but  always  pain  also. 
If  we  say  that  God  is  watching  over  his  world,  he  is  watching 
a  world  so  full  of  misery  that  we  often  think  if  we  were  in 
his  place  we  would  annihilate  it,  if  we  could  not  mitigate  its 
agonies.  How,  we  ask,  can  this  be  the  world  of  that  good 
God  of  whom  Jesus  spoke — Jesus  the  healer,  who  had  com¬ 
passion  upon  the  sufferers  and  forgot  himself  in  the  joy  of 
giving  them  relief  ? 

In  this  indictment  also  there  may  easily  be  one-sidedness 
and  exaggeration,  but  all  the  world  knows  that  behind  it 
there  is  a  dread  array  of  facts.  Probably  this  is  the  form  in 
which  the  problem  comes  tormentingly  to  the  greatest  num¬ 
ber  of  persons.  Perhaps  we  may  safely  guess  that  even  in 
Christian  lands,  where  there  are  two  persons  troubled  about 
believing  in  God  because  of  sin,  there  are  three  troubled 
because  of  suffering.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  for 
power  to  suffer  is  common  to  all  men,  and  no  spiritual  prep¬ 
aration  is  required  for  drawing  inferences  from  it. 

Nevertheless  the  most  serious  form  of  the  objection  is  the 
third.  The  world  is  a  world  of  sin.  The  problem  of  moral 
evil  is  very  ancient,  and  very  modern,  too.  As  soon  as  we 
state  the  Christian  doctrine  the  problem  is  upon  us.  The 
world,  which  has  no  existence  apart  from  God,  abounds  in 
opposition  to  his  character  and  will.  That  which  he  hates  is 
done  by  beings  for  whose  existence  he  alone  is  responsible. 
Instead  of  the  good  and  harmonious  world  that  would  corre¬ 
spond  to  his  holy  love  and  power,  we  behold  a  world  in  which 
good  and  evil  exist  in  perpetual  struggle.  It  is  no  wonder 
that  a  genuine  dualism,  of  opposite  powers  approximately  if 
not  absolutely  equal,  has  sometimes  been  invoked  for  explan¬ 
ation  of  the  facts.  In  Christian  thought,  where  the  eternal 
goodness  is  affirmed,  it  has  still  been  deemed  necessary  to 
believe  in  an  evil  spirit,  less  indeed  than  God  but  for  the 
time  not  badly  matched  against  his  omnipotence,  in  order  to 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


435 


account  for  the  conflict.  However  it  may  have  come  to  pass, 
evil  gets  possession  of  beings  whom  God  created  for  himself, 
and  only  a  minor  part  of  them  does  he  appear  to  us  to  be 
getting  back.  When  we  turn  from  individuals  to  the  course 
of  history,  we  find  that  the  human  career  shows  a  long  his¬ 
tory  of  right  and  wrong,  wrong  often  seeming  stronger  than 
right,  sin  persisting,  and  evil  rising  in  new  forms  after  defeat. 
Evil  seems  far  easier  than  good  to  perpetuate  and  increase. 
The  scene  is  all  unlike  what  we  should  expect  if  the  one  good 
God  were  God  alone,  as  the  Christian  doctrine  declares. 
The  better  God  is  claimed  to  be,  the  deeper  becomes  the 
mystery  of  evil  in  his  world.  Can  we  believe  in  him  in  the 
face  of  this  ?  And  if  we  think  of  men  as  destined  to  live  be¬ 
yond  the  present  life,  and  going  from  this  world  to  some  other 
with  their  evil  in  them,  the  field  of  the  problem  is  at  once 
indefinitely  enlarged.  Out  into  the  unexplored  spiritual  realm 
it  extends,  where  it  seems  to  have  possession  of  all  the  future. 

In  this  complaint  again  there  may  be  inadequate  knowl¬ 
edge  of  things  and  faulty  interpretation:  we  may  perhaps 
be  under  a  nightmare  of  facts  that  we  do  not  rightly  under¬ 
stand.  But  if  so,  we  still  beg  to  be  told  why  God  made  such 
a  nightmare  possible,  and  in  any  case  we  cannot  deny  the 
seriousness  of  the  problem.  The  fact  of  evil  has  darkened 
the  heaven  of  God  for  ages,  and  the  cloud  is  still  there. 

These  three  points  make  up  the  great  moral  objection 
against  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God.  It  is  hard  to  believe 
in  the  God  of  Jesus  Christ,  because  the  world  in  which  we 
live  is  so  impersonal  and  heartless  a  world,  a  world  of  suffer¬ 
ing  and  a  world  of  sin.  The  objection  is  not  merely  an 
affair  of  the  schools,  but  is  found  among  the  people  every¬ 
where  and  always.  To  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men  it 
sometimes  seems  that  the  whole  doctrine  is  refuted  by  the 
facts  of  every  day,  and  left  as  a  beautiful  speculation  con¬ 
demned  by  reality. 

The  consideration  of  this  problem  must  begin  with  frank 
confession.  We  must  say  at  once  that  a  full  solution  of  the 


436 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


problem  is  not  to  be  expected.  We  may  find  rest  to  our 
souls  in  its  presence,  attaining  to  a  confidence  that  is  well- 
grounded,  but  a  full  solution,  such  that  every  reasonable 
mind  must  accept  it,  is  beyond  our  power.  The  question 
will  always  be  with  us  and  with  our  successors.  Expectation 
of  fully  mastering  it  will  quickly  pass  when  we  note  more  pre¬ 
cisely  what  the  question  really  is. 

We  wish  to  know  whether  the  existing  world  can  be  the 
work  and  kingdom  of  a  perfectly  good  God.  The  question  is 
not  an  abstract  one,  asking  what  kind  of  world  such  a  God 
must  make,  but  a  concrete  one,  asking  whether  this  particular 
world  can  be  thought  to  be  created  and  conducted  by  such 
a  God.  Evidently  the  full  answer  to  a  concrete  question  like 
this  must  be  obtained,  if  at  all,  by  interpretation  of  facts. 
We  must  not  only  know  the  facts  with  which  the  question  is 
concerned,  but  understand  them.  How  large  a  work  this  is  a 
glance  will  show.  We  inquire  about  a  world;  but  we  find 
at  once  that  we  are  really  inquiring  about  a  universe.  There 
is  only  one  empire,  in  which  this  world  is  only  a  province, 
and  it  seems  certain  that  understanding  of  this  part  must  de¬ 
pend  somewhat  upon  understanding  of  the  whole.  Methods 
are  doubtless  essentially  the  same  throughout,  and  there  may 
be  aims  and  ends  in  view  that  we  could  know  if  we  knew  the 
whole,  which  our  vision  of  the  part  is  too  narrow  to  reveal  to 
us.  Until  we  know  something  of  the  place  of  our  world  in  the 
vast  whole  to  which  it  belongs,  and  of  the  character  of  that 
whole,  we  may  misjudge  in  our  interpretation  of  facts  that 
affect  us  here.  Periods  that  seem  long  to  us  are  but  mo¬ 
ments  in  the  great  day  of  the  universe,  and  how  shall  we 
understand  them  without  first  knowing  something  of  the 
sweep  and  purpose  of  that  day  ?  But  this  how  shall  we  learn, 
so  well  as  to  call  ourselves  sure  ? 

Every  part  of  the  problem  is  in  this  manner  involved  in 
larger  issues  that  are  too  large  for  clear  reasoning.  We  wish 
to  understand  the  significance  of  suffering;  for  upon  this  de¬ 
pends  the  question  whether  it  can  coexist  with  ruling  divine 
goodness.  But,  in  order  to  know  the  significance  of  suffering, 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


437 


we  need  to  know  the  significance  of  souls  and  their  life,  the 
extent  of  their  duration,  and  the  relation  of  present  experi¬ 
ence  to  life  and  destiny  not  manifest  as  yet.  Before  we  can 
rightly  judge  suffering,  we  must  know  what  is  good  for  souls, 
and  what  suffering  is  adapted  to  do  for  them,  for  good  or 
harm.  We  need  to  be  able  to  compare  the  present  life  of 
which  we  complain  with  a  life  devoid  of  suffering,  if  such 
a  life  could  be.  But  how  are  we  to  become  qualified  to  pass 
judgment  upon  these  matters  ?  We  wish  also  to  form  a  clear 
judgment  respecting  sin,  and  whether  it  can  exist  in  a  good 
God’s  world.  But  to  this  end  we  need  to  know  much  con¬ 
cerning  God  and  men.  Before  we  can  solve  the  mystery  of 
moral  opposition  to  the  will  of  God,  we  need  to  know  the 
scope  and  intention  of  that  will,  and  the  degree  of  his  ability 
to  overcome  evil  with  good  among  his  creatures.  We  need  to 
know  how  evil  came  to  exist  in  men,  and  what  will  be  its 
final  outcome.  Upon  these  great  matters  we  may  obtain 
some  sound  convictions,  but  not  in  such  manner  as  to  make 
of  them  a  real  solution  of  the  problem.  And  before  we  can 
finally  judge  whether  so  impersonal  and  impartial  an  admin¬ 
istration  as  we  seem  to  discover  is  worthy  of  the  heavenly 
Father,  we  need  to  know  just  how  impersonal  and  impartial 
the  actual  administration  is;  and  we  need  to  know  what 
should  be  expected  of  a  heavenly  Father,  and  in  what  manner 
a  divine  care  should  be  expressed  in  a  universal  system. 
Upon  these  matters  we  may  form  good  convictions,  but  as 
matters  for  discovery  they  lie  beyond  our  field.  We  cannot 
conclusively  justify  or  condemn  sin  and  suffering  in  God’s 
universe,  or  an  impartial  administration  of  the  world,  until 
we  know  whether  God  can  make  such  use  of  them  as  to  ren¬ 
der  their  existence  worthy  of  him,  and  bring  forth  worthy  re¬ 
sults  from  the  whole  enterprise  of  the  universe.  In  this  light 
it  is  plain  that  the  full  solving  of  our  problem  is  impossible 
to  men,  since  the  facts  necessary  for  its  solving  are  beyond 
human  knowledge.  The  moral  question  of  God  and  the 
world  will  always  remain  more  or  less  a  mystery  to  men. 
Short  solutions  of  it  have  abounded,  but  they  are  too  short 


438 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


and  easy.  We  may  escape  from  bondage  to  the  problem  into 
the  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God,  but  the  problem  we  shall  never 
wholly  solve,  for  the  simple  reason  that  we  are  finite,  and  the 
problem  is  beyond  finite  knowledge. 

Hence  the  Christian  vindication  of  God  will  always,  as  a 
matter  of  proof,  be  open  to  the  charge  of  incompleteness. 
We  naturally  long  for  a  complete  theodicy,  and  cling  to  the 
hope  that  we  may  obtain  one.  A  sufficient  one  we  can  indeed 
obtain.  We  can  find  rest  to  our  souls,  and  be  able  to  live  in 
honourable  peace  and  freedom  in  our  Father’s  world.  But 
our  theodicy  will  always  be  such  vindication  of  the  infinite 
as  is  possible  to  the  finite,  and  nothing  more.  In  the  uni¬ 
verse  of  souls  the  mystery  of  God  is  essentially  a  moral  mys¬ 
tery  as  well  as  an  intellectual,  and  in  the  realm  of  solutions 
we  must  be  content  with  what  human  powers  can  reach.  Yet 
the  human  solutions,  partial  though  they  are,  are  worthy  of 
our  labour,  for  we  may  lay  hold  of  genuine  truth,  which  will 
help  to  guide  our  feet  into  the  way  of  peace. 

Any  progress  that  is  to  be  made  toward  gaining  light  on 
the  question  whether  the  present  world  can  be  the  good 
God’s  world  must  be  made  by  first  clearing  the  question  of 
some  of  its  usual  ambiguities,  and  setting  it  before  us  more 
clearly.  The  very  seriousness  of  the  problem  leads  often  to  an 
inaccurate  and  unjust  statement  of  the  case.  We  greatly  em¬ 
barrass  ourselves  by  mistaking  half-truths  for  whole  truths 
here,  as  well  as  by  mistaking  half-solutions  for  whole  solu¬ 
tions. 

For  example,  it  is  common  to  ask  whether  a  world  of  sor¬ 
row  can  be  the  world  of  the  good  God.  But  we  need  to  ask 
our  question  more  accurately  than  that.  This  world  is  not 
properly  described  when  it  is  called  a  world  of  sorrow.  It  is 
a  world  of  mingled  sorrow  and  joy,  pain  and  pleasure,  suffer¬ 
ing  and  satisfaction.  What  we  ought  to  be  inquiring  is, 
whether  this  familiar  world,  in  which  suffering  and  enjoy¬ 
ment  are  blended  as  they  are,  can  be  the  good  God’s  world. 
The  question  commonly  arises  from  hearts  that  feel  the  bur- 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


439 


den  and  perplexity  of  the  suffering,  and  so  the  inquiry  is  easily 
made  with  attention  directed  mainly,  if  not  entirely,  to  the 
darker  side.  But  the  world  is  not  all  dark,  and  when  we  in¬ 
quire  about  it,  thinking  of  it  simply  as  a  world  of  sorrow,  we 
are  not  dealing  with  the  real  question. 

In  like  manner  we  stumble  over  the  impartiality  of  the 
universal  order,  thinking  of  it  as  an  order  that  sacrifices  the 
many  to  the  few,  and  seems  not  only  impersonal  but  heart¬ 
less.  Can  this,  we  ask,  be  the  method  of  the  Father  ?  But  we 
beg  the  question  when  we  call  the  method  heartless.  Perhaps 
it  is  not.  There  is  high  authority  for  referring  to  a  gracious 
impartiality  in  which  the  Father  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the 
evil  as  well  as  on  the  good  (Mt.  v.  45);  and  that  kind  of  im¬ 
partiality  is  to  be  traced  in  the  order  of  the  world  as  truly  as 
the  other.  The  impartial  order  does  other  things  than  those 
of  which  we  complain.  It  cannot  fairly  be  judged  in  the  light 
of  one  set  of  results.  The  method  is  a  vast  one,  of  a  universe 
and  not  merely  of  a  world,  and  must  be  estimated  in  view  of 
its  vastness.  Our  real  question  is,  whether  we  can  think  of 
the  impartial  universal  order,  which  seems  indispensable  to  a 
steadfast  universe,  which  holds  all  together  but  works  hard¬ 
ship  in  many  a  case,  as  the  order  of  the  good  God  of  all.  We 
do  the  question  injustice  unless  we  consider  the  whole  of  it  at 
once. 

And  again,  we  ask  in  dismay  whether  the  good  God  can 
be  conducting  a  world  of  sin.  Of  the  evil  in  the  world  we 
cannot  doubt,  for  we  know  it:  it  is  goodness  that  we  doubt. 
Evil  is  so  characteristic  of  the  world  that  we  do  not  scruple  to 
call  it  a  world  of  sin,  and  to  set  it  in  complete  contrast  to  the 
good  character  that  we  seek  to  defend  in  God.  But  any  such 
statement  tells  only  a  part  of  the  truth,  and  does  injustice  to 
the  case.  This  world  is  not  correctly  described  when  it  is 
called  a  world  of  evil.  It  is  that,  but  it  is  more.  It  is  a 
world  of  evil  and  good,  of  wrong  and  right,  of  sin  and  good¬ 
ness.  It  is  of  mixed  moral  quality,  and  is  incorrectly  called 
either  a  good  world  or  a  bad  one.  The  fact  that  it  is  con¬ 
stantly  called  now  one  and  now  the  other  is  enough  to  indi- 


440 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


cate  that  each  name  has  some  fitness.  The  problem  of  evil, 
dark  enough  at  the  best,  has  been  rendered  more  perplexing 
than  it  ought  to  have  been  by  the  overlooking  and  denial  of 
the  existing  good  and  the  exaggeration  of  the  relative  amount 
of  evil  in  the  world.  Christians  have  often  declared  that  sin 
constitutes  the  entire  character  of  man:  if  there  is  any  good¬ 
ness  at  all  it  is  so  corrupted  as  not  to  count  for  real  goodness : 
sin  has  destroyed  all  virtue.  This,  strangely  enough,  has 
oftenest  been  held  in  company  with  the  doctrine  that  God’s 
sovereign  will  is  done  in  everything.  But  this  description  is 
not  true  to  the  facts.  There  is  sin  in  the  world,  and  there  is 
also  virtue,  as  all  living  constantly  assumes.  Good  and  evil 
coexist  and  are  blended.  Each  modifies  the  other.  It  is  quite 
true  that  all  human  goodness  is  corrupted  by  sin,  and  it  is 
equally  true  that  all  human  sin  is  modified  and  diminished  by 
the  goodness  that  lives  in  the  same  soul  with  it.  Unmixed 
good  and  unmixed  evil,  perfect  virtue  and  perfect  sin,  are 
alike  unknown  in  this  world,  but  virtue  and  sin  are  known 
m  all  experience  as  blended  and  diminishing  each  other. 
Neither  will  allow  the  other  to  be  all  that  it  would.  When 
Paul  wrote  (Gal.  v.  17)  ‘^For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the 
Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh;  for  these  are  con¬ 
trary  the  one  to  the  other;  that  ye  may  not  do  the  things  that 
ye  would,”  he  was  only  describing  the  higher  Christian  form 
of  the  agelong  strife  of  humanity,  evil  preventing  good,  and 
good  preventing  evil,  from  doing  its  utmost.  So  the  real 
question  is  not  whether  we  are  to  attribute  an  utterly  bad 
world  to  the  good  God  and  Father,  for  we  do  not  live  in 
such  a  world.  That  question  will  not  encounter  us  unless 
we  suppose  that  God’s  creative  enterprise  results,  through 
conditions  that  he  has  himself  established,  in  the  production 
and  final  maintenance  of  an  absolutely  evil  world  of  spirits 
beyond  this  life.  Only  a  final  hell  of  God’s  own  making 
could  force  the  inquiry  upon  us  in  the  extreme  form  which 
it  is  too  often  allowed  to  take.  As  long  as  we  deal  with 
experience,  the  question  is  whether  this  well-known  world, 
where  good  and  evil  are  blended  as  we  find  them,  can  be  his. 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


441 


This  clearer  defining  is  not  proposed  in  order  to  prejudge 
or  limit  the  answer  to  the  vast  question  of  evil,  but  because 
it  is  necessary,  if  we  are  to  be  right.  Here  are  the  facts :  view¬ 
ing  one  aspect  of  our  life,  we  must  not  overlook  the  other.  We 
must  not  begin  by  inquiring  about  a  world  of  heartless  im¬ 
partiality,  for  the  question  remains  whether  the  impartiality 
is  heartless  after  all.  The  world  about  which  we  inquire  is 
not  to  be  characterized  as  a  world  of  suffering,  for  it  is  a 
world  of  suffering  and  enjoyment  blended.  Nor  are  we  ask¬ 
ing  about  the  relation  of  the  good  God  to  a  world  of  sin,  for 
the  existing  world  is  full  of  mingled  sin  and  virtue,  good  and 
evil,  right  and  wrong.  Only  by  keeping  the  whole  case  be¬ 
fore  us  can  we  make  a  successful  inquiry. 

Another  question  must  be  considered  if  we  are  to  have  the 
true  data  before  us.  As  a  matter  of  fact,the  world  eontains 
these  perplexing  elements  that  constitute  the  perpetual  prob¬ 
lem.  They  are  here,  but  how  came  they  here?  Where  did 
they  come  from,  and  what  are  their  conneetions  ?  Are  they 
a  part  of  the  system  that  is  attributed  to  God,  or  are  they  in¬ 
truders  into  that  system?  Evidently  the  question  is  impor¬ 
tant,  for  our  estimate  of  these  things  will  differ  greatly  accord¬ 
ing  as  we  think  they  belong  in  the  system  where  we  find  them, 
or  have  been  thrust  in  upon  it  as  alien  elements;  and  so  will 
our  conception  of  the  system  itself.  Until  we  have  loeated 
our  perplexing  facts,  as  it  were,  either  as  belonging  to  the 
system  that  we  ascribe  to  God  or  as  outside  of  it,  we  cannot 
judge  how  God  is  related  to  them.  Are  we  inquiring  how 
God  is  related  to  certain  dark  and  mysterious  elements  in  his 
own  system,  or  how  he  is  related  to  certain  intrusions  made 
in  spite  of  his  will,  and  for  which  he  has  no  responsibility  ? 
This  is  a  deep  and  far-reaching  question.  It  is  so  great  that 
we  are  often  tempted  to  assume  an  answer  to  it  without  con¬ 
sidering  the  whole  case  that  lies  before  us.  But  the  Christian 
doctrine  cannot  be  content  with  any  timid  or  temporizing 
approach  to  so  great  a  question,  for  the  answer  must  be  de¬ 
terminative  of  much  in  our  thoughts  of  God.  Perhaps  the 


442 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


three  perplexing  facts  may  prove  to  be  all  alike  in  this  re¬ 
spect — all  intruders  or  all  non-intruders — and  perhaps  not. 
At  all  events  we  must  inquire. 

We  will  begin  with  suffering;  and  of  this  we  must  say 
without  hesitation  that  suffering  is  no  intruder  in  the  world : 
it  belongs  to  the  system  that  we  are  proposing  to  attribute  to 
the  good  God.  All  observation  shows  that  it  is  the  nature  of 
the  world  to  contain  both  pain  and  pleasure.  If  this  is  the 
good  God’s  world,  then  the  good  God  has  a  world  in  which 
enjoyment  and  suffering  are  constantly  mingled,  through  the 
operation  of  the  order  that  he  has  established. 

Suffering  in  the  animal  world  is  no  intruder  upon  nature. 
All  animal  life  involves  sensation,  and  there  is  no  way  to  in¬ 
sure  that  sensation  shall  be  all  pleasant  or  all  painful.  If 
there  are  nerves  of  feeling,  and  the  uses  of  life  are  to  be 
served  by  them,  both  pain  and  pleasure  must  come  in.  It  is 
the  very  nature  of  sensitive  life  to  enjoy  and  suffer.  More¬ 
over,  the  conditions  of  life  render  pain  inevitable.  If  God 
has  ordained  them,  God  has  ordained  suffering  as  well  as 
pleasure.  Organisms  are  liable  to  injury,  and  injury  in¬ 
volves  pain.  Organisms  have  their  natural  time-limit,  so  that 
dissolution,  or  death,  is  sure  to  come  to  them;  and  death 
ordinarily  involves  suffering,  more  or  less.  Animals  live  to¬ 
gether;  and  while  their  association  doubtless  enhances  their 
pleasure,  it  also  offers  boundless  opportunity  for  producing 
pain.  Consequently,  in  the  living  world  below  man  physical 
enjoyment  and  suffering  have  always  existed  together.  Which 
has  been  the  greater  no  one  knows  or  can  know.  Sometimes 
our  hearts  are  almost  broken  in  sympathy  with  the  unutter¬ 
able  agony  of  the  animal  world:  sometimes  they  sing  for  joy 
in  sympathy  with  its  exuberant  life.  One  element  is  just  as 
truly  a  part  of  the  one  system  of  existence  as  the  other,  and 
neither  may  be  branded  as  an  intruder  that  forced  itself  in. 
The  ancient  immoral  suggestion  that  animal  life  was  doomed 
to  suffering  in  anticipation  or  punishment  of  human  sin  is 
now  rendered  entirely  impossible  by  what  we  know  of  the 
methods  of  life,  and  of  the  vastness  and  antiquity  of  the 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


443 


animal  world.  In  a  system  that  includes  sensitive  corporeal 
life  there  is  no  need  of  any  theory  to  account  for  suffering. 
It  is  a  part  of  the  great  whole. 

When  we  come  to  the  human  race  the  conditions  are  the 
same,  except  that  here  there  are  more  ways  for  pleasure  and 
pain  to  enter.  Here  nerves  are  more  sensitive,  bringing 
pleasure  and  pain  more  exquisite.  Here  injury  is  easy,  and 
death  is  natural  and  certain.  Here  living  beings  hurt  one 
another,  as  well  as  bring  one  another  enjoyment.  But  here, 
besides,  suffering  is  mental  as  well  as  physical.  Man  thinks, 
loves,  hates.  His  thoughts  may  torment  him — witness  the 
effect  of  this  very  problem.  His  affections  are  his  glory  and 
joy,  brightening  his  life  beyond  description,  but  the  wound¬ 
ing  of  affection  breaks  his  heart.  He  loves  and  loses,  and  the 
nobler  the  love  the  sorer  the  bereavement.  He  hates,  too, 
and  hatred  is  bitter,  and  anger  is  painful.  The  contingen¬ 
cies  of  life  render  disappointment  certain.  It  is  impossible  for 
pain  and  pleasure  to  be  distributed  according  to  desert,  the 
misery  falling  only  on  the  wicked,  for  obviously  the  causes  are 
largely  independent  of  character.  The  old  explanation,  that 
human  suffering  is  wholly  due  to  sin,  utterly  breaks  down, 
and  must  be  entirely  abandoned  in  theology.  There  is 
no  way  to  make  it  credible  that  sinless  life  in  this  world 
would  be  free  from  suffering  so  long  as  the  natural  con¬ 
ditions  of  life  continue  as  they  are.  So  for  men  as  well  as 
for  lower  animals  it  appears  that  the  system  of  life  is  one  in 
which  pleasure  and  pain  are  blended.  Neither  of  the  two 
has  been  brought  in  from  without.  The  order  of  the  existing 
world  produces  both,  and  if  this  is  a  good  God’s  world,  then 
both  exist  in  the  world  of  a  good  God.  Abnormal  doings  of 
men  destroy  the  normal  balance  of  the  two,  and  give  sad  in¬ 
crease  to  the  pain,  but  pain  as  truly  as  pleasure  enters  into  the 
scheme  of  human  life. 

What  the  normal  balance  is  we  may  not  be  able  to  tell,  nor 
can  we  ascertain  the  actual  balance.  Is  there  more  pleasure 
or  pain  in  the  total  human  experience?  Who  can  answer? 
Enjoyment  in  its  ordinary  forms  passes  unnoticed,  but  pain 


444 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


does  not.  If  all  sensations  of  body  and  mind  throughout  the 
race  could  be  rightly  classified  and  compared,  probably  it 
would  appear  that  mankind  lives  a  life  of  dominant  enjoy¬ 
ment,  heavily  dashed  with  suffering.  Such  probably  is  that 
human  world  which  we  are  seeking  to  understand. 

If  suffering  is  in  the  scheme  of  life,  it  must  have  some  sig¬ 
nificance  in  the  system.  Any  doctrine  of  the  world  will  say 
that;  and  any  doctrine  that  takes  account  of  the  vast  quan¬ 
tity  of  suffering  in  the  world  must  allow  to  it  an  important  sig¬ 
nificance.  Since  the  universe  has  evolved  suffering  as  so 
large  an  element  in  its  life,  suffering  must  accomplish  some¬ 
thing.  But  the  meaning  of  suffering  is  not  hard  to  find.  All 
who  read  life  can  read  it.  Suffering  is  educative,  and  stands 
forth  as  a  teacher  for  whose  instruction  there  is  no  substitute. 
In  lower  life  it  has  been  a  chief  means  of  developing  intelli¬ 
gence  and  turning  it  to  progressive  uses.  It  is  doubtful 
whether,  without  the  discipline  of  pain,  any  part  of  the  animal 
world  could  have  advanced  to  the  possibility  of  man.  “A 
burnt  child  dreads  the  fire”  is  a  wholesome  educative  law 
that  represents  the  use  of  pain  in  its  simplest  form;  but  the 
simpler  the  more  fundamental,  and  to  this  simple  prineiple 
the  growth  of  intelligence  is  vastly  indebted.  When  we  come 
to  human  life,  how  many  out  of  a  deep  heart  have  sung  the 
praises  of  sorrow  as  a  wise  teacher  of  the  soul!  There  is  no 
need  that  we  repeat  the  praises  in  detail:  one  stanza  of  the 
song  will  suffice.  “Our  light  affliction,  which  is  but  for  a 
moment,  worketh  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and  eternal 
weight  of  glory”  (2  Cor.  iv.  17).  Is  that  said  of  Christians? 
Yes,  but  it  could  not  be  true  of  Christians  if  it  were  not  true 
in  principle:  this  could  not  be  God’s  way  of  training  Chris¬ 
tians  if  it  were  not  his  way  of  training  souls.  A  power  of 
blessing  has  been  stored  in  the  nature  of  affliction  itself. 
7^he  general  experience  bears  testimony  that  it  is  the  true 
nature  of  trouble  to  “yield  afterward  the  peaceable  fruit  of 
righteousness”  (Heb.  xii.  11).  That  the  lesson  is  often  missed 
is  nothing  against  the  reality  of  the  teaching.  The  world 
knows  that  suffering  is  normally  a  means  of  moral  education. 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


445 


We  shrink  from  it,  of  course,  and  our  dislike  of  the  discipline 
leads  us  childishly  to  ignore  its  value.  But  just  as  we  must 
doubt  whether  painless  life  below  could  ever  have  brought 
man  into  being,  so  we  must  doubt  whether  painless  life  for 
man  could  ever  bring  into  being  those  sons  of  God  for  whose 
perfecting  the  Father’s  affection  waits.  The  upward  road 
runs  through  regions  where  pain  and  pleasure  both  exist. 

If  this  is  true,  we  need  not  be  so  perplexed  and  troubled 
because  we  find  suffering  in  the  life  that  we  attribute  to  the 
good  God.  If  there  is  such  a  God,  the  training  of  life  is  his 
end  in  view,  and  the  mingling  of  pleasure  and  pain  appears 
to  be  the  best  method  for  that  end.  The  broad  fact  of  suffer¬ 
ing  would  seem  thus  to  be  explained,  as  far  as  we  can  expect 
explanation  of  it.  We  may  still  wonder  at  the  amount  and 
variety  of  suffering  that  we  meet,  and  find  no  explanation  of 
this  mystery.  The  dark  facts  may  still  be  very  dark  to  us. 
But  we  must  learn  that  we  are  not  to  obtain  relief  from  our 
problem  by  working  it  out  from  the  details  upward.  This 
we  might  expect  at  first,  but  childishly,  for  the  details  are  too 
complicated  for  such  a  method.  Relief  can  come  only  by 
our  finding  a  principle  that  accounts  for  suffering  and  re¬ 
veals  its  purpose;  and  this  we  find.  In  the  light  of  experi¬ 
ence  we  may  fairly  claim  a  place  for  pain  by  the  side  of 
pleasure  in  the  system  of  a  good  God  who  is  training  life 
toward  perfection;  and  then  we  may  leave  the  details  to 
a  wisdom  better  than  our  own. 

This  leads  us  on  to  that  impressive  and  mysterious  impar¬ 
tiality,  or  seemingly  impersonal  and  indifferent  operation,  of 
which  we  have  spoken.  The  system  of  the  world  works  right 
on,  with  interference  or  modification  in  behalf  of  none,  bring¬ 
ing  to  the  many  far  less  than  to  the  few,  and  apparently  des¬ 
titute  of  interest  in  any.  This  seems  all  unlike  a  God  who 
loves  his  creatures  each  and  all,  accounts  them  his  own  and 
seeks  their  good,  after  the  manner  of  the  Father  of  Jesus. 
Even  in  the  animal  world  we  wonder  at  this  method,  and  still 
more  in  the  human.  What  does  this  mean  if  God  is  love  ? 


446 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Here  we  must  judge  with  caution,  for  we  are  dealing  with 
something  that  stretches  far  beyond  our  personal  scope. 
The  method  that  we  are  considering  is  broader  than  this 
world :  it  is  a  method  of  the  universe.  It  is  as  a  province  in 
a  vaster  realm  that  this  world  feels  its  effect.  What  we  ex¬ 
perience  in  the  small  we  observe  in  the  large,  and  know  to  be 
in  the  universal.  But  we  must  notice  that  this  universality 
answers  our  question.  The  impartial  method  that  we  are 
moved  to  criticise  is  evidently  a  part  of  the  system.  By  no 
possibility  can  we  imagine  that  this  element  has  been  brought 
in  through  any  exceptional  operation.  This  is  of  God,  if 
there  be  a  God.  There  can  be  neither  hope  nor  fear  that  it 
will  prove  otherwise. 

This  element  also,  if  it  is  in  the  system  of  the  world,  must 
have  a  meaning  there;  and  there  is  no  difficulty  in  perceiving 
what  the  meaning  is.  This  element  of  steadiness,  independ¬ 
ence,  impartiality,  seeming  impersonality,  is  what  consti¬ 
tutes  it  a  system.  So  plain  a  fact  needs  only  to  be  mentioned. 
The  regularity  of  the  movement  of  the  world  makes  hard¬ 
ship  often,  and  the  hardship  that  falls  upon  us,  and  still  more 
that  which  falls  upon  all,  leads  us  to  complain.  A  more 
adjustable  order,  we  say,  would  be  more  righteous.  Yet  if 
the  world  were  made  over  as  we  suggest,  it  would  be  criti¬ 
cised  far  more  sharply  than  it  is  now.  If  we  saw  the  order 
modified  to  help  one  or  punish  another,  we  should  exclaim 
against  the  favouritism  and  inequality  more  urgently  than 
we  now  do  against  the  grinding  of  the  great  machine.  If  we 
were  imagining  a  well-ordered  world,  certainly  we  should 
propose  that  one  impartial  wisdom  govern  the  whole  alike. 
An  order  that  was  not  regular  and  equal,  impersonal  and 
calm,  we  should  call  unworthy  alike  of  wisdom  and  of  right¬ 
eousness.  The  most  thoughtful  human  judgment  really 
approves  the  impartial  method,  knowing  that  there  could  be 
no  successful  world  without  it. 

There  is  only  one  condition  precedent  to  the  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  such  a  method  in  the  universe  of  a  good  God.  This 
condition  is  not  that  the  method  shall  work  no  hardship,  or 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


447 


involve  no  morally  perplexing  facts.  It  is  that  we  shall  be 
reasonably  able  to  regard  the  system  as  on  the  whole  expres¬ 
sive  of  the  wisdom  of  God  and  his  good-will  toward  his 
creatures.  We  cannot  insist,  indeed,  that  this  quality  shall 
be  self-evident,  or  that  there  shall  be  no  appearances  to  the 
contrary.  But  in  any  universe  that  is  governed  by  a  good 
God  we  are  sure  that  the  regular  order  will  be  one  that  on  the 
whole  does  good  service  to  the  universe  and  to  those  who 
inhabit  it.  This  is  all  that  we  can  ask;  and  as  to  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  it  that  we  can  expect  to  receive,  of  course  it  will  be 
only  such  as  lies  within  the  range  of  our  ability  and  our  in¬ 
formation.  We  must  judge  here  with  caution  and  humility, 
because  we  know  so  little.  We  do  well  to  be  very  cautious 
about  denying  the  worthiness  of  the  universal  order,  for  how 
shall  we  be  sure  that  we  understand  it  well  enough  to  con¬ 
demn  it  with  confidence  ?  The  presumption  that  our  experi¬ 
ence  warrants  is  all  in  favour  of  the  honesty  of  the  scheme  to 
which  our  life  belongs.  To  condemn  it  is  to  cut  the  ground 
of  rationality  from  under  our  own  feet.  This  we  will  do  if  we 
must,  but  this  we  will  not  do  unless  we  must.  We  will  hold 
rather  to  the  worthiness  of  the  world-order.  That  it  does  to 
a  vast  extent  express  wisdom  and  good-will  we  know.  The 
method  does  good  service.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  think  its 
seeming  contradictions  reconcilable  in  fuller  light  than  to 
deny  the  sincerity  of  the  general  existence.  Our  affirmation 
of  the  worthiness  of  the  impartial  order  is  not  made  on  the 
ground  of  triumphant  proof,  but  it  is  made  in  the  light  of 
reasonable  confidence;  and  a  denial  of  it  cannot  be  made  in 
the  light  of  either. 

It  is  to  be  added  that  no  believer  in  the  good  God  imagines 
that  the  impartial  order  of  the  world  expresses  the  whole  of 
him.  If  he  seems  to  hide  himself  in  indifference  behind  the 
impersonal  order,  the  Christian  doctrine  denies  the  indiffer¬ 
ence.  It  declares  that  whether  we  discern  him  or  not  he  is 
there,  the  indwelling  God,  dealing  with  men  in  the  realm  of 
a  spiritual  existence  that  ranks  above  the  order  that  seems 
impersonal,  caring  for  all,  doing  the  work  of  an  invisible 


448 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


friend,  uttering  himself  in  every  instructive  voice,  communi¬ 
cating  with  every  living  soul,  providing  for  destinies  as  yet 
unseen.  If  his  creatures  seem  wronged  by  the  impartial 
working  of  his  universe,  still  the  deeper  truth  is  that  in  him 
they  live  and  move  and  have  their  being,  and  his  tender  mer¬ 
cies  are  over  all  his  works  (Ps.  cxlv.  9).  This  Christian  con¬ 
ception  of  God  himself,  though  often  left  out  in  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  this  question,  must  always  be  in  mind  when  we  in¬ 
terpret  divine  impartiality.  If  we  are  to  judge  whether  the 
method  of  the  universe  is  compatible  with  the  reign  of  the 
good  God,  the  good  God  must  be  defined,  as  well  as  the 
method  of  the  universe.  The  good  God  is  the  more  easily 
definable  of  the  two,  and  ought  never  to  be  so  much  as 
mentioned  in  the  discussion  without  remembrance  of  his  per¬ 
fect  character. 

We  come  now  to  sin,  or  moral  evil — the  existence  of  so 
vast  a  mass  of  acts  and  character  contrary  to  the  character  of 
the  God  of  the  Christian  doctrine.  Here  culminates  the 
ethical  objection  to  the  Christian  conception  of  God.  We 
must  follow  the  same  order  as  before,  and  inquire  first  whether 
sin  belongs  to  the  system  or  has  been  thrust  into  it — whether 
human  evil  is  to  be  treated  as  a  product  of  the  world-order, 
or  as  an  intruder  into  its  field. 

It  is  an  old  question,  and  has  been  answered  by  Christian 
thought  in  both  ways.  Consistent  Calvinism  has  always  held 
that  sin  was  a  part  of  the  system  of  the  world,  being  included 
in  the  predestinating  will  of  God.  Even  while  it  was  strenu¬ 
ously  denied  that  God  was  the  author  of  evil,  it  has  been 
held  that  his  comprehensive  will,  foreordaining  all  that  comes 
to  pass,  embraced  the  rise  and  progress  of  human  sin,  and  all 
its  developments.  On  the  other  hand,  this  position  has  been 
denied  as  strongly  as  it  has  been  affirmed.  Sin  has  been  de¬ 
clared  to  be  simply  an  intruder  in  the  world,  having  no  place 
in  the  order  that  God  intended.  To  pronounce  him  respon¬ 
sible  in  any  sense  for  its  existence  has  been  considered  pro¬ 
fane  and  blasphemous.  Sin,  it  is  often  declared,  exists  in  spite 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


449 


of  God,  an  intruder  to  his  world  against  his  will.  It  is  no 
wonder  that  both  these  positions  have  been  held,  for  one  is 
a  natural  inference  from  God^s  supremacy,  and  the  other 
from  his  character.  If,  in  interpreting  the  mystery  of  evil,  we 
start  from  the  sovereignty  of  God,  we  shall  be  likely  to  con¬ 
clude  that  he  appointed  sin  to  be,  for  it  exists.  If  we  start 
from  the  character  of  God,  we  shall  be  likely  to  rank  sin  as 
an  utter  alien  in  his  realm,  for  it  is  opposite  to  his  charac¬ 
ter.  In  either  case  we  shall  find  deep  mystery — how  such 
a  God  could  will  such  a  mass  of  evil  to  exist,  or  else  how  it 
could  exist  against  his  will.  No  serious  advocate  of  either 
view  would  deny  the  mystery,  or  claim  that  his  doctrine 
solved  it. 

Apart  from  what  is  thought  of  God,  sin  is  often  judged  to 
be  no  part  of  the  world-system  because  of  its  unreasonable¬ 
ness.  Moral  evil,  it  is  said,  is  essentially  unreasonable:  irra¬ 
tionality  is  its  abiding  trait:  therefore  in  a  rational  system  it 
can  have  no  place,  and  in  God^s  world  can  only  be  an  in¬ 
truder.  But  in  this  judgment  the  case  has  not  been  fully 
considered.  The  irrationality  of  sin  has  proved  to  be  no  bar 
to  its  entrance  or  its  stay,  and  the  question  still  remains  un¬ 
answered,  why  the  utterly  irrational  should  be  able  to  estab¬ 
lish  so  strong  and  permanent  a  hold  within  the  rational  world, 
whose  nature  and  affinities  gave  it  no  welcome. 

As  usual,  it  is  best  to  begin  with  the  part  of  the  subject  that 
lies  nearest  home,  and  interrogate  the  available  facts.  Not 
by  inferences  from  the  divine  counsel  or  character,  but  by 
observation  of  sin  and  the  world-order,  can  we  best  judge 
whether  sin  entered  through  the  system  or  in  spite  of  it.  It  is 
only  human  sin  that  we  are  called  to  consider,  for  this  is  all 
the  sin  that  we  have  clear  knowledge  of.  If  we  could  show 
that  evil  was  brought  into  this  world  from  some  other,  we 
should  find  no  relief  in  that:  the  problem  would  not  be 
solved,  but  would  only  change  its  place,  and  even  be  a  larger 
problem  in  its  vaster  field.  If  we  knew  of  sin  existing  in 
other  races,  still  our  ignorance  of  the  conditions  of  their  life 


450 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


would  forbid  our  making  such  examination  of  it  as  we  can 
make  among  men.  Our  only  course  is  to  interrogate  the  facts 
of  this  world,  in  order  to  learn  whether  sin  found  an  open 
door  or  could  enter  only  by  breaking  in. 

But  sin  is  not  to  be  considered  as  if  it  stood  alone.  We  have 
already  noted  that  evil  is  not  the  only  moral  quality  in  the 
world,  for  good  and  evil  are  not  only  side  by  side,  but  are 
everywhere  mixed  and  blended.  The  world-order  that  we 
are  to  examine  is  not  merely  one  that  contains  sin,  but  one 
that  contains  sin  and  goodness,  and  is  peopled  by  beings 
who  do  both  right  and  wrong.  This  mixed  character  of  the 
world  is  not  usually  considered  when  the  relations  of  sin  are 
in  discussion,  but  there  is  no  true  understanding  if  this  is 
overlooked. 

To  the  question  whether  sin  is  a  part  of  the  system  or  an 
alien  element,  there  is  only  one  possible  answer,  in  the  pres¬ 
ent  state  of  knowledge.  Through  its  own  method  the  order 
of  the  world  has  produced  beings  who  do  right  and  wrong. 
Life  has  developed  into  good  character  and  bad.  Virtue  and 
sin  are  natural  growths  in  the  field  of  the  life  of  humanity. 
If  there  is  a  good  God  over  all,  he  is  a  good  God  who  has 
himself  produced  a  world  of  mingled  good  and  evil.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  show  that  this  is  true. 

It  has  already  been  shown  how  naturally  the  moral  ele¬ 
ment  came  into  the  human  lot.  Sensation  belongs  to  the 
nature  of  life,  judgment  between  sensations  makes  life  ra¬ 
tional,  and  choice  among  judgments  and  sensations  makes 
life  moral.  Morality  comes  as  soon  as  men  begin  to  choose, 
and  consequently  to  act,  either  with  or  against  the  worthier 
appeal.  Responsibility  comes  when  the  choice  or  act  is  in¬ 
telligent  enough  to  be  one’s  own.  It  is  by  a  perfectly  natural 
movement  that  life  has  moved  on  through  these  successive 
stages.  The  movement  was  in  progress  long  before  man 
appeared,  or  he  would  never  have  appeared  at  all.  In  fact, 
the  progress  of  this  movement,  from  sensation  to  morality 
and  religion,  constituted  the  approach  of  man.  In  inferior 
life  the  mental  process  is  of  the  same  kind  as  in  man,  only 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


451 


less  advanced,  and  the  moral  quality  exists,  only  less  de¬ 
veloped.  When  the  movement  had  proceeded  so  far  as 
to  man,  there  was  in  him  a  real  though  incipient  per¬ 
sonality,  to  which  incipient  responsibility  belonged.  Man 
came  into  existence  as  a  being  in  whom  rationality  had 
grown  up,  and  morality  had  followed,  only  one  stage  behind. 
Both  qualities  were  inherited  from  the  past,  but  were  inher¬ 
ited  as  germinant  gifts  whose  significance  lay  in  the  future. 
That  the  origin  of  the  moral  nature  of  man  was  of  this  kind  is 
certain,  and  we  have  no  right  to  consider  it  in  any  other  light. 

One  inference  is  plain.  Coming  thus  into  existence,  it  was 
impossible  that  mankind  should  start  either  good  or  bad, 
exclusively.  Both  good  and  evil  had  their  beginnings  already 
made  and  their  tendencies  established.  One  was  as  natural 
as  the  other.  A  career  of  mingled  good  and  evil,  right  and 
wrong,  is  the  career  to  which  the  human  race  was  born. 

All  forward  movement  of  life  is  movement  toward  some 
goal  or  standard  not  yet  reached :  and  forward  movement  of 
this  kind  is  the  normal  action  of  life  in  all  its  stages.  This  fact 
is  plainest  when  we  look  at  the  beginnings  of  man.  The 
coming  of  man  consisted  in  what  we  may  rightly  call  the 
coming  of  the  soul.  Life  now  at  last  began  to  take  its  highest 
form,  the  conscious  spiritual.  Slowly  its  powers  were  now 
gathered  into  the  personal  and  responsible.  A  being  was 
formed  who  was  rationally  akin  to  the  structure  of  the 
world,  and  yet  was  impelled  by  his  higher  nature  to 
lay  hold  of  a  power  above  the  world.  The  soul  was  now  the 
norm,  to  whose  requirements  and  fitnesses  the  action  of  life 
ought  to  be  conformed.  This  means  that  the  proper  life  for 
man  was  life  in  which  the  purpose  looked  forward  to  higher 
things,  the  relations  were  understood  and  acted  upon  in  the 
light  of  reason  and  religion,  and  impulses  of  the  lower  kind 
were  kept  in  appropriate  subordination.  The  norm  for  him 
to  follow  was  that  which  had  made  him  man,  different  from 
life  below.  The  ascent  of  life  had  brought  him  into  being,  and 
now  it  was  normal  that  life  should  still  ascend,  devoting  its 
energies  to  the  perfecting  of  the  best  that  it  had  yet  brought 


452 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


forth^  elevating  man  toward  the  kindred  spiritual  power 
above.  And  now  that  man  was  a  conscious  being,  looking  be¬ 
fore  and  after,  with  some  growing  power  to  perceive  what  he 
was  and  what  he  might  be,  it  depended  upon  himself  whether 
or  not  he  was  to  turn  his  life  to  these  highest  uses.  It  was  his 
calling  to  follow  his  higher  nature,  and  live  more  and  more  as 
a  spiritual  being,  while  yet  his  life  had  its  roots  in  his  animal 
existence. 

But  with  what  powers  was  he  to  press  on  toward  the  prize 
of  this  upward  calling  ?  With  such  as  he  had,  for  there  was 
no  other  way.  But  the  powers  that  he  had  were  such  as  the 
past  had  bequeathed  him  and  the  present  was  training.  The 
body  was  old,  the  soul  was  new:  lower  life  was  ancient, 
spiritual  life  incipient.  The  higher  impulses  were  just 
struggling  into  existence:  the  common  life  was  the  soil  out 
of  which  they  must  rise,  and  they  had  not  yet  the  training 
that  would  render  them  clear  and  sure.  The  habits  of  life, 
both  personal  and  social,  were  inherited  from  periods  in 
which  the  upward-reaching  force  was  still  of  inferior  grade, 
reaching  up  only  to  the  level  that  had  now  been  attained. 
Animal  impulses  were  ancient,  familiar  and  powerful :  choice 
and  action  were  adjusted  from  of  old  to  the  methods  of  the 
ages  before  the  soul.  Meanwhile  the  early  human  outreach 
in  religion  was  only  such  as  it  could  be,  and  grasped  the  un¬ 
seen  more  strongly  than  clearly.  The  soul  planted  in  man 
was  like  the  seed  in  the  parable,  cast  into  the  midst  of  thorns. 
If  the  thorns  did  not  spring  up  and  choke  it  altogether,  there 
must  have  been  some  good  reason  why. 

There  is  no  doubt  what  would  occur  in  such  a  case.  Men 
would  do  right  and  do  wrong.  Right  and  wrong  had  been 
begun,  in  rudimentary  fashion,  in  the  animal  world,  before 
man  came.  If  there  had  not  been  normal  action,  which  is  of 
the  nature  of  right,  man  would  never  have  come.  When 
once  he  had  come,  with  greater  intelligence  and  capable  of 
more  various  action,  it  was  inevitable  that  normal  conduct 
and  abnormal  conduct  should  be  continued.  Man  would  do 
right.  The  soul  would  call  him  on — for  in  the  order  of  nature 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


453 


and  of  God  the  soul  had  come  to  stay,  and  not  only  to  stay  but 
to  grow  and  to  govern.  The  soul  with  its  rising  powers  would 
tell  him  how  he  must  treat  his  fellows,  what  he  must  make 
of  himself,  and  how  he  must  ascend  to  realities  above.  It 
would  teach  him  but  poorly  at  first,  but  it  would  impel  him  in 
the  right  direction,  and  not  in  vain.  The  power  of  the  spirit 
is  no  dream,  and  it  was  certain  to  become  effective  in  man’s 
doing  right.  And  it  was  equally  certain  that  he  would  do 
wrong,  for  the  impulses  to  do  wrong  were  already  present  in 
force.  The  soul,  the  heavenly  guest,  is  not  most  welcome 
among  the  earthly  powers,  and  they  rise  to  thwart  its  en¬ 
deavours.  The  inherited  impulses  are  largely  selfish — not 
wholly  so  but  largely — and  when  they  become  working  ma¬ 
terial  for  the  human  will,  they  are  sure  to  be  transmuted  into 
genuine  human  selfishness,  which  is  the  enemy  of  the  soul. 
Passions  that  were  normal  once  may  be  abnormal  when  the 
soul  with  its  higher  destinies  has  come,  and  yet  they  are 
habitual  in  the  life  and  ingrained  in  the  being  of  man;  and 
they  cannot  be  prevented  from  having  too  much  control. 
Consciousness  of  power  is  a  fact  in  animals:  when  it  becomes 
a  more  intelligent  thing  in  man  with  his  larger  ingenuity  and 
wider  range  of  action,  what  shall  keep  him  back  from  vio¬ 
lence  and  oppression  ?  Wherever  there  is  association  there  is 
possibility  of  right  and  wrong;  and  man  with  all  his  impulses 
toward  good  and  evil  is  every  moment  a  social  being,  sure  to 
seize  his  innumerable  opportunities.  The  growing  soul  had 
to  deal  with  bodily  appetites  before  it  could  know  what 
domineering  enemies  they  might  become.  Thus  it  is  un¬ 
questionable  that  human  life,  coming  as  it  did,  must  put  forth 
moral  activity  that  is  neither  all  good  nor  all  bad,  but  both 
good  and  bad,  in  inextricable  mingling.  The  mixed  character 
which  the  moral  life  of  mankind  has  always  borne  was  the 
natural  consequence  of  the  manner  in  which  mankind  came 
into  existence,  and  is  a  genuine  part  of  the  system  or  world- 
order  in  which  human  life  is  included.  Sin  cannot  be  reck¬ 
oned  an  intruder  in  our  race,  any  more  than  night  can  be 
called  an  alien  element  in  the  affairs  of  our  planet. 


454 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


To  say  this  is  not  to  deny  the  worth  and  glory  of  the  good 
or  the  genuine  badness  of  sin,  or  to  detract  from  the  solem¬ 
nity  of  life.  When  once  the  soul  has  come,  life  becomes  in¬ 
expressibly  serious,  for  the  question  is  whether  the  soul  with 
its  godlike  possibility  is  to  rule.  For  the  soul  to  rise  to  its 
normal  inheritance  in  God  is  the  best  thing  that  can  be: 
action  that  helps  it  is  best  and  worthiest,  and  action  that  de¬ 
feats  it  is  worst.  The  soul  can  be  defeated  only  by  the  bad, 
and  the  badness  of  sin  is  measured  by  this  worst  of  tenden¬ 
cies,  to  drag  the  soul  down  from  its  glory.  When  we  say  that 
the  system  of  life  provided  for  good  and  evil,  we  are  saying 
that  it  opened  the  door  to  the  very  best  and  the  very  worst 
that  is  possible  to  spiritual  beings. 

The  conclusion  that  good  and  evil  have  both  been  brought 
forth  by  the  operation  of  the  order  of  the  world  is  not  reached 
by  theorizing,  but  stands  as  the  only  reasonable  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  facts.  It  suggests,  however,  another  important 
question.  Where,  then,  we  shall  be  asking,  rests  the  respon¬ 
sibility  ?  Who  is  responsible,  according  to  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  and  the  facts  of  life,  for  the  sins,  say,  of  Nero,  and  the 
virtues  of  Socrates?  This  is  the  same  as  asking  who  is  re¬ 
sponsible  for  the  mixed  moral  condition  of  the  world,  and  for 
the  innumerable  instances  of  good  and  evil  that  it  presents  in 
bewildering  variety  ? 

It  is  an  old  assumption,  almost  held  sacred  in  popular 
ethics,  that  the  responsibility  for  any  given  act  must  all  be 
concentrated  in  one  place.  A  strong  individualism  denies 
that  any  one  but  Nero  or  Socrates  can  carry  any  part  of  the 
burden.  But  if  we  distinguish  things  that  really  differ,  we 
shall  say  that  responsibility,  never  destroyed,  is  distributed. 
The  answer  to  the  question  of  responsibility  stands  in  four 
parts.  For  the  great  world-order,  in  which  good  and  evil  have 
come  into  existence  according  to  natural  process,  God  is  re¬ 
sponsible,  and  no  one  else :  this  he  does  not  wish  us  to  deny. 
For  the  accumulated  inheritance  of  good  and  evil  which  any 
given  individual,  Nero  or  Socrates,  receives  in  his  personal 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


455 


constitution,  the  human  race  is  responsible — the  race,  which 
for  good  and  ill  has  developed  and  trained  the  common  na¬ 
ture  to  the  point  at  which  the  individual  receives  it.  This 
racial  responsibility  is  a  most  real  thing.  For  the  acts  and 
choices  that  make  or  mar  the  character  and  destiny  of  the 
man,  the  individual  himself  is  responsible — the  Nero  or 
Socrates  who  is  doing  good  or  evil  by  his  own  volition;  for 
the  individual  in  question  has  not  come  forth  from  the  hu¬ 
manity  that  produced  him  as  a  spool  comes  forth  from  the 
machine,  made  and  finished,  but  stands  as  one  more  in  the 
long  succession  of  genuine  actors,  capable  of  doing  real  deeds 
and  building  up  a  real  character.  And  for  the  innumerable 
influences  that  affect  the  individual  Nero  or  Socrates,  and 
help  to  make  his  character  and  conduct  right  or  wrong,  the 
responsibility  is  distributed  among  the  many  persons,  past 
and  present,  who  have  done  good  and  evil  in  the  world. 
Thus  among  God,  humanity,  himself,  and  his  various  fellows 
is  divided  the  responsibility  of  any  man’s  moral  condition 
and  conduct.  There  is  no  valid  way  of  denying  any  part  of 
this  fourfold  assignment.  The  man  can  say  that  God  created 
him  so,  that  humanity  produced  him  so,  and  that  his  fellows 
influenced  him  so,  and  yet  he  must  say  that  he  himself,  the 
living  person,  has  acted  so,  in  doing  right  or  wrong. 

Since  we  find  moral  evil  in  the  system  of  existence  as  an 
element  that  did  not  enter  by  intrusion,  shall  we  inquire,  as 
we  did  concerning  the  other  perplexing  facts,  whether  we  can 
discover  any  meaning  for  it  there?  This  appears  to  be  a 
hopeless  quest,  and  to  propose  it  may  seem  to  be  only  an 
aggravation  of  the  general  despair.  Sin,  we  say,  is  so  abso¬ 
lute  a  contradiction  of  the  divine  intent  as  to  be  essentially  un¬ 
intelligible:  we  are  sure  that  no  place  can  be  found  for  it,  or 
any  clue  to  the  cause  of  its  being.  Nevertheless,  the  question 
is  forced  upon  us.  When  we  examine  the  common  life  of 
mankind,  we  find  it  bringing  forth  good  and  evil  side  by  side. 
The  normal  action  of  such  a  being  as  man  results  in  both. 
Of  course  it  can  never  appear  that  sin  is  normal  to  man. 


456 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


By  its  very  nature  it  is  horribly  abnormal,  and  in  sound 
judgment  it  will  always  stand  as  something  anomalous  in  the 
human  world.  But  the  startling  significance  of  this  is  plain. 
It  is  a  part  of  the  world-order  that  something  anomalous 
shall  exist  in  the  world,  as  well  as  something  normal.  This 
fact  stands  out  clearly  and  is  most  important:  the  Mind  that 
conceived  and  established  the  system  contemplated  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  an  anomalous  and  abnormal  element  in  his  world — 
that  is,  of  something  anomalous  and  abnormal  in  relation 
to  the  higher  ends  that  he  was  seeking.  He  contemplated 
the  doing  of  something  else  besides  his  own  will  by  men. 
And  can  we  see  why  ?  This  is  the  real  question  concerning 
evil,  and  this  the  real  mystery.  Why  an  abnormal  element, 
wrought  into  the  system  of  God  ? 

We  may  remember  once  more  that  the  soul  in  humanity 
was  not  born  into  peace,  but  into  moral  conflict.  Its  coming 
and  its  advancement  to  responsibility  necessarily  precipitated 
moral  conflict:  so  it  does  in  the  individual,  and  so  it  did  in 
the  race.  The  proper  destiny  of  the  human  now  resided  in 
the  soul,  and  the  forward-reaching  impulse  that  is  native  to 
life  should  now  normally  be  a  demand  for  those  qualities  in 
which  alone  the  soul  could  fulfil  its  nature,  namely,  for  self- 
command,  for  high  aims,  for  moral  goodness,  for  divine  fel¬ 
lowship.  But  a  destiny,  to  be  fulfilled,  must  be  accepted  and 
wrought  out  by  him  to  whom  it  belongs;  and  the  new-born 
human  contained  in  itself  the  sure  presage  of  internal  conflict 
as  to  the  acceptance  of  destiny  with  the  soul.  The  soul  could 
win  its  way  to  dominance  only  by  mastering  the  divided 
nature  of  which  it  was  a  part.  Thus  with  the  soul  came 
strife  between  the  old  and  the  new,  the  lower  and  the  higher. 
It  was  not  between  the  soul  and  the  body,  or  between  the 
higher  destinies  and  the  animal  passions:  these  are  but  ele¬ 
ments  in  a  larger  strife.  It  was  an  inward  conflict  between 
the  past  and  the  future,  between  what  was  and  what  ought 
to  be,  between  what  should  be  abandoned  and  what  should 
be  attained.  It  was  war  for  control  between  these  two.  The 
conflict  was  within,  at  the  seat  of  the  will,  and  must  be  there, 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


457 


for  it  was  a  strife  between  impulses  that  were  man’s  own. 
The  battle  must  be  fought  out  by  his  willing  and  acting  now 
in  one  way  and  now  in  the  other,  living  his  divided  life,  learn¬ 
ing  by  experience,  and  coming  to  unity  after  being  first  divided 
against  himself.  This,  whatever  we  may  think  of  it,  and 
whether  we  can  understand  and  justify  it  or  not,  is  the  way 
in  which  our  race  was  made.  From  first  to  last  its  life  is 
moral  conflict. 

This  view  of  the  facts  gives  another  form  to  the  question  of 
sin  and  the  good  God.  So  to  speak,  it  changes  the  scene  of 
the  inquiry.  The  question  now  relates  not  primarily  to  the 
world  as  we  behold  it,  with  all  that  its  life  has  brought  forth, 
but  to  the  creature  who  is  living  the  life.  We  do  not  inquire 
first  whether  God  can  have  originated  the  actual  present-day 
world,  though  that  may  seem  to  be  the  obvious  question. 
We  ask.  Can  the  good  God  have  originated  beings  with  the 
fount  of  good  and  evil  in  their  nature,  whose  life  is  moral 
conflict,  and  who  are  sure  to  make  the  world  both  good  and 
bad  ?  This  is  what  has  occurred,  for  such  a  race  is  the  race 
that  exists.  Can  a  good  God  be  the  source  of  its  being? 
It  is  the  question  of  man. 

Yet  even  this  is  not  the  question  in  its  ultimate  form. 
Farther  back  it  goes.  It  is  the  question  not  only  of  man  but 
of  life.  It  is.  Can  the  good  God  and  Father  be  the  originator 
of  life,  the  embodied  life  which  has  existed  through  uncounted 
ages  in  this  world  ?  From  its  first  hour  life  contained  all  the 
future,  and  when  it  was  begun  all  destinies  of  the  living  were 
launched.  A  few  words  of  recapitulation  will  show  how  true 
this  is.  Life,  that  mysterious  something  which  is  to  maintain 
itself  by  utilizing  what  surrounds  it,  implies  power  of  sensa¬ 
tion,  through  which  its  necessary  connections  must  be  made. 
Experience  of  sensation,  pleasant  and  painful,  brings  com¬ 
parison  of  sensations,  with  estimation  of  them  and  choice 
between  them;  and  through  such  experience  life  passes  into 
rationality.  Rational  experience  brings  judgment  as  to  what 
will  best  serve  the  best  ends,  and  thus  life  attains  a  moral 
quality.  All  this  is  done,  not  in  some  secret  chamber  of 


458 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


thought,  but  in  action,  and  thus  the  will  is  always  in  training, 
and  is  always  directing  the  life.  The  rational  and  the  moral 
were  promised  when  life  began:  life  had  but  to  do  its  work, 
and  they  would  come.  The  history  of  embodied  life  has  wit¬ 
nessed  the  developing  of  the  lower  nature  first,  and  the  ad¬ 
vent  of  the  higher,  or  of  what  we  call  the  soul,  when  the  lower 
was  sufficiently  developed  to  serve  its  uses.  When  the 
higher  comes,  it  is  born  to  rational  and  moral  warfare,  hav¬ 
ing  to  win  its  place  among  older  powers,  and  learn  to  live 
according  to  its  destiny.  What  corresponds  to  the  upward, 
God  ward  tendency  is  good  and  right:  what  denies  or  resists 
that  tendency  is  evil  and  wrong.  In  such  a  case  right  is  done, 
and  wrong  is  done:  good  grows  in  the  world,  and  so  does  evil. 
A  solid  mass  of  worthy,  right  and  helpful  practices,  imperfect 
but  good,  becomes  established  in  the  common  life,  and  so 
does  a  dreadful  sum  and  variety  of  sin  and  wrong,  too  terrible 
for  imagination.  There  is  a  great  stock  of  common  virtues, 
and  a  great  stock  of  sin,  and  the  double  growth  goes  on,  age 
after  age:  this  is  the  world.  And  all  this  is  only  the  genuine 
development  from  the  nature  of  embodied  life.  For  the  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  present  conditions  of  good  and  evil  we  must 
look,  not  to  the  beginning  of  humanity,  or  to  some  event  in 
its  career,  but  back  to  the  beginning  of  life  itself.  Can  the 
good  God  have  created  life?  is  the  question;  for  life  itself 
contained  the  secret  of  sensation,  of  reason,  of  morals,  of  right 
and  wrong,  of  virtue  and  sin,  and  of  the  present  and  future 
glories  and  terrors  of  existence. 

It  is  on  this  primary  question  that  the  East  and  the  West 
are  at  variance.  The  East  holds  that  existence  is  a  curse, 
the  West  that  it  is  a  blessing.  In  the  East,  the  wonder  is  that 
any  adequate  power  was  ever  so  unwise  and  unkind  as  to 
produce  conscious  life:  in  the  West,  even  in  dark  days,  the 
song  of  gratitude  to  the  Creator  has  never  ceased.  Neither 
view  need  surprise  us,  for  there  are  great  arguments  for  both. 
In  the  modern  beginning  of  world-wide  acquaintance,  ap¬ 
parently,  the  sadness  of  the  East  is  somewhat  sobering  the 
cheerfulness  of  the  West,  and  the  brightness  of  the  West  is 


THE  GREAT  OBJECTION 


459 


tempering  the  gloom  of  the  East;  but  these  are  only  begin¬ 
nings  of  mutual  influence,  and  the  contrast  is  too  deep-seated 
to  be  quickly  overcome.  Yet  all  the  more  because  we  see 
how  deep  the  contrast  is,  the  best  that  is  in  us  affirms  that 
the  West  is  right,  that  creation  is  worthy  of  God,  and  that 
life  is  a  good  gift.  All  the  weight  of  the  value  of  moral 
reality  is  on  that  side.  Our  trusting  of  our  own  souls,  our 
conviction  that  the  world  is  an  honest  world,  our  sense  of  the 
certainty  of  utter  confusion  to  our  whole  being  if  it  were  other¬ 
wise,  all  impel  us  to  assert  that  God  was  right  in  creating 
life,  even  though  its  unfolding  brought  the  evil  with  the  good. 

At  the  element  of  training  through  moral  conflict  which  we 
find  in  life  we  need  not  be  offended,  for  we  know  of  no  other 
way  in  which  character  was  to  be  formed  and  the  right  destiny 
of  the  soul  attained.  Perhaps  we  cannot  declare  it  to  be  the 
only  way,  for  perhaps  we  do  not  know;  but  we  can  say  that 
it  certainly  corresponds  to  human  nature.  We  at  least  have 
seen  no  other  method  of  attaining  to  confirmed  high  char¬ 
acter.  Moral  education  must  be  inward  through  experience. 
Ultimate  character,  whether  good  or  bad,  implies  an  inward 
victory  over  the  opposite.  Character  untested  is  insecure.  In 
men,  settled  moral  character  seems  to  imply  personal  knowl¬ 
edge  of  good  and  evil;  not  of  all  possible  good  and  evil,  of 
course,  and  not  of  some  specified  amount  or  intensity  of  strife, 
but  such  acquaintance  and  such  conflict  as  to  make  the  victory 
secure  when  it  has  been  won.  The  training  of  souls  to  char¬ 
acter  is  a  great  and  exacting  work.  We  often  speak  as  if  God 
might  have  ordained  it  in  any  way  that  he  liked,  and  would 
have  done  best  if  he  had  chosen  an  easy  way.  But  we  seem 
to  be  justified  in  saying  that  the  nature  of  life  involves  the 
present  method.  If  God  would  have  living  children  like 
himself,  they  must  grow  up  through  such  experience  as  life 
implies.  The  discipline  of  a  living  raee  appears  to  require  an 
amount  and  kind  of  experience  that  we  should  never  dare  to 
propose,  and  only  the  infinite  wisdom  could  safely  dare  to 
initiate.  Such  a  God  as  the  Father  of  Jesus  is  the  only  God 
who  can  have  a  right  to  be  the  Father  of  souls.  If  the  train- 


460 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


ing  of  children  through  conflict  is  not  unworthy  of  him,  we 
cannot  blame  him  for  placing  his  children  in  a  world  of 
mingled  good  and  evil.  We  can  imagine  a  world  that  we 
could  not  attribute  to  a  perfect  God.  Perhaps  such  a  world 
would  be  one  into  which  so  terrible  an  anomaly  as  sin  had 
forced  its  way  against  the  will  of  the  Creator.  If  it  had  suc¬ 
cessfully  intruded  to  his  realm  and  established  so  vast  an  em¬ 
pire  there  in  spite  of  him,  certainly  we  could  not  attribute 
to  him  the  supremacy  which  the  perfect  goodness  must  pos¬ 
sess.  But  a  world  that  became  a  world  of  good  and  evil 
because  it  was  the  home  of  life,  and  by  reason  of  the  advent 
of  the  soul  that  he  created  for  himself,  does  not  seem  to  be 
one  in  which  the  good  God  can  have  had  no  part. 

Of  course  this  view  of  the  matter  does  not  dispel  the  pres¬ 
ent  darkness.  It  is  not  the  problem  ol  evil  that  makes  the 
trouble,  it  is  the  evil.  Evil  is  a  dreadful  thing,  for  it  proposes 
defeat  to  God  and  ruin  to  man.  We  may  try  to  comfort  our¬ 
selves  indeed  by  giving  it  softer  names.  We  may  insist  that 
it  is  no  entity,  but  only  the  absence  of  good,  and  argue  that,  as 
a  mere  negative,  it  will  by  and  by  disappear.  But  it  is  of  no 
use.  This  is  not  a  true  description,  and  the  argument  deals 
with  words,  not  facts.  Moral  evil  is  a  dreadful  thing,  and  it 
is  here.  Sin  has  entered  and  has  failed  to  make  an  exit. 
Evil  stays  and  grows.  It  touches  everything.  It  has  mar¬ 
vellous  power  of  self-renewal.  Belief  in  immortality  only 
enlarges  our  conception  of  its  magnitude,  for  souls  full  of  evil 
go  out  into  another  life.  If  we  speak  of  evil  as  an  element  in 
the  means  of  training,  still  we  ask  ourselves  whether  it  proves 
to  be  that,  on  the  whole.  Is  it  accomplishing  its  end,  if  the 
end  is  this  ?  Does  the  conflict  result  in  the  successful  train¬ 
ing  of  mankind  ?  Is  evil  really  of  any  use  ?  Is  it  not  sheer 
waste  and  curse  instead,  cursing  all  in  vain?  No  general 
statement  of  the  relation  of  good  and  evil  to  the  world  disposes 
of  these  facts  and  questionings.  Nevertheless,  such  a  state¬ 
ment  is  not  in  vain.  It  leads  us  back  to  origins,  and  shows  us 
that  what  we  are  discussing  is  really  the  problem  of  existence^ 


THE  great  objection 


461 


concerning  which  we  are  constrained  to  affirm  the  universal 
goodness.  We  look  back  to  the  origins  and  find  some  relief 
from  a  part  of  our  perplexities:  now  if  only  we  could  look 
forward  with  clear  vision  to  the  end !  We  justly  feel  that  if 
we  are  to  make  a  true  estimate  of  the  meaning  of  evil  we  need 
to  know  the  outcome.  What  is  to  be  the  end  of  it  ?  How 
far  is  the  good  God  able  to  utilize  for  his  purpose  this  darker 
result  of  the  moral  conflict  that  belongs  to  life  ?  How  much 
is  he  able  to  accomplish,  and  how  much  will  he  accomplish, 
toward  the  conquering  and  eradication  of  sin  ?  How  long  will 
he  seek  that  of  his  own  which  is  lost  ?  Is  the  human  will  so 
related  to  the  divine  that  all  that  is  lost  can  be  found  and 
restored  by  him  ?  and  will  he  find  it  all  ?  If  we  could  confi¬ 
dently  include  the  vast  movement  of  sin  between  a  God¬ 
worthy  origin  and  a  God  worthy  outcome,  we  might  sadly 
wonder  on  the  way,  but  we  could  rest  in  hope. 

All  the  doctrine  that  Christianity  has  to  offer  in  view  of 
these  questions  is  its  doctrine  of  God.  Christianity  does  not 
accept  the  dilemma  that  if  God  is  love  he  is  not  almighty, 
and  if  he  is  almighty  he  is  not  love.  It  believes  that  he  is 
both.  His  character  is  perfect  and  his  power  is  adequate 
to  his  character.  It  beholds  a  God  so  good  as  to  be  worthy 
to  be  a  creator.  Jesus  has  unveiled  to  us  the  face  of  a  God 
who  had  the  right  to  bring  all  creatures  into  being,  and  who 
is  forever  the  righteous  and  holy  friend  of  all  existence.  This 
is  the  supreme  fact  in  the  face  of  which  we  are  to  meet 
all  questions  and  deal  with  all  perplexities.  It  is  true  that 
clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him:  we  cannot  solve 
the  questions  or  see  our  way  through  the  perplexities,  but 
that  does  not  alter  God.  It  is  in  his  universe  that  evil  ex¬ 
ists;  and,  we  must  remember  also,  it  is  in  his  eternity  that  evil 
has  its  being.  The  significance  of  eternity  must  never  be  for¬ 
gotten  here.  Evil,  since  it  affects  souls  of  immortal  destiny, 
is  a  matter  of  more  than  earthly  scope,  and  we  should  be 
most  shortsighted  if  we  were  to  suppose  that  any  experiences 
of  this  world,  present  or  future,  could  suffice  to  solve  the 
problem  of  it.  Life  in  this  world  is  too  incomplete  for  that. 


462 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


Since  departing  souls  are  carrying  evil  into  the  unseen  world, 
we  cannot  fail  to  see  that  in  that  world  the  question  of  God^s 
victory  over  evil  must  be  wrought  out.  God  changes  never. 
In  that  unseen  realm  of  life  he  is  forever  the  same  as  here — 
or  rather,  to  express  the  eternal  truth  more  worthily,  in  this 
little  world  he  is  the  same  that  he  forever  is  in  the  infinite 
realms  of  being — the  lover  of  souls  and  the  enemy  of  sin. 
His  Saviourhood,  which  is  the  expression  of  his  nature,  is  as 
eternal  as  himself.  If  it  were  not  of  wider  scope  than  this 
present  life,  we  could  not  possibly  think  of  him  as  the  con¬ 
queror  of  sin,  for  we  know  that  sin  cannot  be  wholly  con¬ 
quered  in  this  life;  but  not  only  “Wide  as  the  world  is  his 
command, but  “Vast  as  eternity  his  love.’’  We  are  not 
able  to  trace  out  our  hopes  to  their  fulfilment  or  our  fears 
to  their  extinction,  but  as  Christians  we  are  entitled  to  leave 
the  problem  of  evil  in  the  hands  of  the  God  and  Father  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  trusting  him  that,  wherever  sin  has 
abounded,  grace  will  much  more  abound. 

Evil  will  remain  with  us  as  a  problem,  however,  until  the 
day  when  the  Christian  people  are  possessed  heart  and  soul 
by  the  spirit  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  When  “  the  love  of  Christ 
constraineth  us”  we  shall  find  ourselves  drawn  into  fellow¬ 
ship  with  God’s  eternal  passion  for  overcoming  evil  with 
good.  Then  evil  will  not  seem  less  evil,  but  more,  but  we 
shall  view  it  with  altered  eyes.  Now  we  look  at  sin,  seeking 
to  solve  a  problem:  then  we  shall  look  at  the  sinful,  seeking 
to  save.  Instead  of  a  problem,  we  shall  have  a  work;  instead 
of  speculation,  love;  instead  of  pessimistic  doubt,  the  hope 
that  accompanies  holy  faith  and  high  endeavour.  May  that 
day  soon  dawn. 

5.  THE  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF  IN  GOD 

The  doctrine  of  God  is  an  object  of  belief,  but  so,  in  a 
more  important  manner,  is  the  great  reality  of  God  himself. 
It  is  much  to  believe  the  doctrine,  knowing  what  it  means, 
but  the  characteristic  utterance  of  Christianity  has  always 


THE  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF  IN  GOD 


463 


been,  ‘‘I  believe  in  God,”  and  that  is  far  more.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  faith  in  a  doctrine,  but  faith  in  God  in  the  fa¬ 
miliar  name  of  the  Christian  act  and  attitude.  It  remains, 
at  the  end  of  our  presentation  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  to 
give  some  account  of  the  belief  that  corresponds  to  the  doc¬ 
trine,  and  to  the  reality  which  the  doctrine  sets  forth.  It  is 
very  unfortunate  that  the  word  believe  is  so  ambiguous;  for 
when  we  summon  men  to  believe,  as  in  the  name  of  the  gos¬ 
pel  we  do,  they  may  think  we  are  calling  them  merely  to  give 
assent  to  our  statements,  or  they  may  understand  that  we  ask 
for  an  act  of  the  whole  soul  rising  to  the  acceptance  of  a  great 
conviction.  Belief  in  the  doctrine  of  God  may  easily  be  noth¬ 
ing  more  than  assent  to  testimony  or  to  evidence,  acceptance 
of  reasoning,  or  approval  of  an  intellectual  interpretation  of 
the  world.  But  belief  in  God,  of  which  we  are  speaking  now, 
is  more  than  assent,  more  than  a  work  of  intellect,  more  than 
an  understanding  of  the  world.  It  is  greater,  and  at  the  same 
time  simpler,  than  any  of  these.  It  is  a  dealing  between  the 
man  and  God  himself.  In  its  effect,  it  is  the  flight  of  the  soul 
to  its  rest,  and  the  rising  of  the  soul  to  its  strength.  It  cannot 
be  described  in  a  phrase  or  two,  but  some  of  its  qualities  may 
be  remembered  here. 

The  Church  has  always  been  right  in  regarding  the  Chris¬ 
tian  belief  in  God  as  a  response  to  revelation.  Naturally  it 
would  be  so,  if  there  were  any  God  worthy  to  be  believed  in. 
If  there  is  such  a  God,  it  must  be  his  good  pleasure  that  men 
should  know  him;  and  if  they  feel  after  him  and  And  him,  it  is 
because  he  is  not  far  from  every  one  of  us  (Acts  xvii.  27),  and 
is  seeking  to  be  known.  The  God  in  whom  Christians  believe 
has  it  for  his  nature  to  be  self-manifesting,  and  revelation  is 
not  his  exceptional  work  but  his  everlasting  activity.  All  hu¬ 
man  belief  in  God  has  risen  in  response  to  his  perpetual  self- 
expression  in  nature  and  in  man.  But  the  Christian  belief  is 
a  response  to  his  clearest  self-revelation,  made  in  humanity. 
In  the  spiritual  life  of  men  he  has  progressively  made  him¬ 
self  known  as  the  God  of  righteousness  and  love,  and  at 


464 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


length  in  Jesus  Christ  he  has  made  the  self-expression  that 
taught  men  more  of  him  than  they  had  ever  known  before. 
Those  who  have  learned  of  Jesus  have  become  acquainted 
with  a  God  in  whom  our  deepest  life  can  rest  and  be 
utterly  satisfied :  that  is  to  say,  they  have  found  the  God  for 
whose  fellowship  man  was  evidently  made.  Holy,  righteous, 
gracious,  is  the  Being  whom  they  have  come  to  know;  and  all 
their  acquaintance  with  him  confirms  their  certainty  that  he 
is  the  true  and  living  God.  But  such  a  God  and  Father  as 
this  was  never  passively  discovered,  or  found  in  spite  of  him¬ 
self  by  the  mere  groping  of  men.  With  such  a  character  as 
he  bears,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  our  knowledge  of  him 
was  obtained  not  only  with  his  consent,  but  in  pursuance  of 
his  active  will.  God  was  in  Christ  self-revealing,  and  God 
is  in  our  life  self-revealing,  and  our  belief  in  him  is  our  re¬ 
sponse.  He  was  beforehand  with  us  in  showing  us  what 
manner  of  God  he  was,  and  thus  it  came  to  pass  that  we 
knew. 

Put  in  the  more  familiar  terms,  this  is  simply  to  say  that 
the  Christian  belief  in  God  is  the  child’s  recognition  of  the 
Father — for  as  Father  Jesus  reveals  him — and  it  is  a  matter 
of  course  that  the  Father  was  there  to  be  recognized,  and 
was  showing  his  face  to  his  child  that  he  might  be  recog¬ 
nized.  The  child’s  gaze  into  his  face  is  the  gaze  of  confidence 
deserved  forever  by  his  self-imparting  goodness. 

We  do  not  tell  the  whole  truth,  however,  when  we  call  the 
Christian  belief  a  response  to  the  Christian  revelation.  *  We 
should  misjudge  the  greatness  and  breadth  of  that  belief  if 
we  were  to  think  of  it  as  grounded  solely  in  experiences  that 
we  are  accustomed  to  call  religious,  or  in  any  historical  reve¬ 
lation.  This  greatest  of  our  beliefs  is  a  response  not  only  to 
that  which  is  commonly  called  revelation,  but  also  to  the 
primary  facts  of  life,  and  to  the  realities  that  encounter  us 
in  the  general  experience.  Here,  too,  we  may  say  if  we 
choose,  that  we  are  responding  to  revelation,  for  God  speaks 
to  us  in  the  order  of  our  life.  But  it  is  another  set  of  con- 


THE  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF  IN  GOD 


465 


siderations  that  here  appeals  to  us,  and  the  response  that 
we  make  to  them  when  we  believe  in  God  is  worthy  to  be 
mentioned  by  itself. 

When  we  take  for  true  the  reality  of  the  God  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine,  we  start  from  the  most  universal  human  ex¬ 
periences.  It  may  seem  to  us  that  our  first  step  is  confidence 
in  the  God  whom  we  feel  to  be  worthy  of  our  trust,  but  it  is 
not.  We  could  have  no  living  confidence  in  God  at  all  if  it 
were  not  for  certain  other  confidences  that  we  all  hold.  Not 
even  upon  the  authority  of  revelation  could  we  believe  in 
him,  but  for  certain  beliefs  that  enter  into  the  warp  and  woof 
of  our  daily  living.  There  is  a  practical  substratum,  a  foun¬ 
dation,  without  which  no  belief  in  God  could  be  trusted  to 
stand  fast,  or  even  to  arise.  It  is  very  true  that  in  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  simple  and  childlike  faith  this  underlying  support  of 
our  confidence  is  not  recognized  and  reasoned  out:  we  build 
upon  it  without  analysis:  but  none  the  less  do  we  build 
upon  it,  and  none  the  less  does  it  lie  firm  beneath  us. 

The  Christian  confidence  in  God  begins  so  far  back  as  to 
include  the  confidence  that  we  naturally  have  in  ourselves — 
in  our  senses,  our  rational  faculties,  and  our  moral  powers. 
It  includes  confidence  in  the  world  as  an  honest  world  and 
the  universe  as  a  universe  of  reality  and  truth,  in  which 
knowledge  is  trustworthy  and  religion  is  not  in  vain;  confi¬ 
dence  in  the  goodness  of  the  good  and  the  badness  of  the 
bad;  confidence  in  the  worthiness  of  the  searchings  of  con¬ 
science  and  the  inspirations  of  hope;  confidence  that  the 
rational  order  is  grounded  in  the  eternal  reason  and  the 
moral  order  in  the  eternal  righteousness ;  confidence  that  our 
nature  does  not  search  in  vain  when  it  seeks  divine  founda¬ 
tions  for  human  life;  confidence,  in  a  word,  that  the  worthiest 
explanation  of  existence  is  the  truest,  and  that  that  which  is 
bears  witness  to  an  eternal  interest  in  that  which  ought  to  be. 
Much  of  this  confidence  may  be  implicit,  and  as  it  were  in¬ 
stinctive,  but  all  this  is  included  or  implied  in  the  Christian 
belief  in  God,  and  if  we  did  not  constantly  assume  these 
primal  realities,  we  could  not  attain  to  that  belief.  It  is  on 


466 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  wings  of  this  comprehensive  human  confidence  that  we 
rise  to  the  simple  and  all-unifying  Christian  faith.  Indeed,  it 
is  in  the  strength  of  this  primal  confidence  that  we  respond  to 
the  Christian  revelation  itself.  When  we  put  our  trust  in  the 
God  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  which  speaks  in  the  voice  of  faith 
is  the  soul  claiming  its  birthright;  for  such  a  God  is  the  birth¬ 
right  of  man.  The  soul  dares  to  rise  in  calm  assertion  that 
our  nature  does  not  fool  us  or  the  world  deceive,  and  that 
therefore  the  God  who  is  worthy  of  our  confidence  is  the  God 
who  lives. 

In  a  word,  we  trust  the  normal  assumption  of  rational 
minds,  that  existence  has  been  fairly  and  honestly  given  us, 
as  a  blessing  and  not  as  a  curse.  When  we  assume  this,  we 
are  moving  straight  toward  the  recognition  of  the  God  who 
made  us  thus;  and  when  we  behold  the  God  whom  Jesus 
teaches  us  to  know,  we  recognize  the  God  in  whom  our 
primal  confidences  have  prepared  us  to  believe.  Acquaint¬ 
ance  with  our  Father  is  our  birthright,  and  thus  we  come 
to  it. 

We  might  make  response  to  revelation  and  to  the  common 
certainties  by  a  belief  that  was  not  more  than  an  intellectual 
assent  and  conviction.  This  many  do,  and  perhaps  all  some¬ 
times  do;  for  no  faith  is  perfect.  Such  belief,  though  not  the 
best,  is  by  no  means  to  be  condemned  or  despised.  It  is  a 
response  to  evidence,  and  is  at  least  an  honest  intellectual 
acceptance  of  truth.  God  who  knows  our  feebleness  cannot 
despise  it.  But  the  full  Christian  belief  in  God  is  more  than 
this.  It  is  not  merely  a  reasoned  conviction  or  a  free  assent: 
it  is  also  a  faith,  whose  nature  and  privilege  it  is  to  venture 
out  beyond  sight  and  beyond  full  evidence.  In  rising  to  God 
it  rises  to  the  unseen  and  undemonstrated.  It  is  an  assurance 
of  things  hoped  for,  a  conviction  of  things  not  seen  (Heb.xi.  1). 

It  need  not  be  said  that  our  senses  give  us  no  vision  of  the 
existence  and  character  of  God.  Forever  is  he  “  God  whom 
no  man  hath  seen  or  can  see’’  (1  Tim.  vi.  16).  All  belief  in  him 
is  belief  that  goes  out  beyond  the  field  of  the  senses.  It 


THE  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF  IN  GOD 


467 


should  be  so;  for  belief  is  a  function  of  the  invisible  man,  and 
the  senses,  though  they  may  guide  us  toward  some  place  of 
vision,  cannot  discern  the  God  who  is  invisible.  The  souhs 
transaction  of  belief  both  begins  and  ends  where  they  cannot 
go.  But  belief  in  God  lies  not  only  beyond  the  region  of  the 
senses:  it  lies  also  beyond  the  region  of  demonstration.  No 
one  can  claim  that  the  existence  of  God  has  ever  been  proved 
demonstratively.  There  are  good  reasons,  and  great  reasons, 
and  sufficient  reasons,  for  believing  in  it,  but  if  we  ask  for 
demonstration  we  ask  in  vain,  and  doubtless  it  will  be  so  for¬ 
ever.  The  doctrine  of  God  contains  truth  to  which  the 
method  of  demonstration  does  not  correspond.  The  intellect 
must  believe  in  him  on  the  evidence  that  we  possess — and  it 
is  great — and  the  whole  man  must  rise  to  him  in  the  direction 
which  the  evidence  warrants,  by  an  act  of  faith.  For  it  is  the 
nature  of  faith  to  go  out  beyond  sight,  and  to  take  hold  upon 
that  which  is  not  seen  or  proved.  Faith  is  a  rising  of  the  soul 
to  truth.  It  does  not  ascend  by  the  mere  whim  of  the  mind, 
for  in  the  best  that  we  know  there  are  good  grounds  for  faith. 
But  the  eye  of  reason  does  not  see  the  whole  height  of  the 
ascent  of  faith:  it  sees  the  direction,  but  not  the  entire  way. 
Faith  is  the  daring  of  the  soul  to  go  farther  than  it  can  see. 
In  it  there  is  sound  reason,  and  hope,  and  holy  courage. 

This  is  what  is  meant  when  the  Christian  act  of  believing 
is  called,  as  it  often  is,  the  venture  of  faith.  In  exercising  the 
Christian  belief  in  God  a  man  must  go  not  only  farther,  but 
very  much  farther,  than  he  can  see.  The  belief  to  which  he 
rises  is  that  the  Source  and  Lord  of  all  is  the  eternal  goodness 
loving  in  wisdom:  it  is  belief  in  the  personal  Spirit,  perfectly 
good,  who  in  holy  love  creates,  sustains  and  orders  all.  Here 
the  perfect  character  is  believed  in,  just  as  distinctly  as  the 
eternal  existence;  and  as  of  the  existence,  so  of  the  perfect 
character,  we  must  own  that  it  has  never  been  demonstrated 
in  our  presence.  Many  sincere  souls  who  might  believe  in  a 
God  judge  it  beyond  their  power  to  believe  in  such  a  God, 
in  such  a  world  as  this.  The  testimony  of  innumerable  de¬ 
tails  of  dreadful  fact  agrees  that  the  world  in  which  we  live. 


468 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


the  only  world  we  know,  is  an  inconceivably  hard  world  in 
which  to  believe  in  a  God  of  perfect  goodness.  Light  upon 
the  dark  problem  of  good  and  evil  in  our  life  is  but  dim,  and 
it  is  too  much  to  expect  that  any  investigations  of  ours  will 
solve  the  mystery.  We  are  even  divided  against  ourselves; 
for  we  feel  that  the  best  that  is  in  us  requires  a  different 
world  from  this  at  the  hands  of  a  perfect  God,  and  yet  the 
best  that  is  in  us  feels  itself  to  be  built  upon  the  very  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  perfect  God  as  the  supreme  reality.  It  is  plain 
that  if  we  are  to  hold  the  Christian  belief  in  the  eternal  good¬ 
ness  loving  in  wisdom,  we  must  hold  it  by  a  venture  of  faith, 
going  out  beyond  what  we  can  see.  We  do  hold  it,  and  we 
hold  it  by  such  a  venture.  From  the  evidence,  but  beyond 
the  evidence,  that  our  life  affords,  we  follow  on  to  the  asser¬ 
tion  of  God,  the  living  God,  absolutely  good.  From  partial 
proof  we  rise  to  the  full  conclusion.  There  are  doubts  and 
there  is  darkness,  but  in  faith  the  soul  gathers  up  its  most 
honourable  energies  and  declares  that  good  is  the  sun  and 
evil  is  the  cloud,  and  that  the  perfect  and  eternal  sun  is  God. 
Contrary  appearances  are  plentiful  enough,  but  they  are  left 
beneath,  while  the  soul  trusts  its  primal  certainties,  follows 
them  to  their  sure  conclusion,  and  proclaims  the  reality  of 
the  eternal  goodness  loving  in  wisdom  and  ruling  all. 

Nor  are  we  ashamed  of  the  venture  of  faith.  Some  would 
make  it  a  reproach  against  the  Christian  faith  in  God  that  it 
thus  goes  beyond  the  tangible  evidence,  and  makes  affirma¬ 
tions  which  there  are  no  sufficient  inductions  to  support. 
The  reproach  is  a  natural  one  coming  from  the  outside,  but 
it  is  not  deserved.  The  venture  of  faith  is  not  a  wilful  act, 
merely  an  assertion  of  something  that  one  wishes  to  be  true: 
it  is  the  affirmation  of  something  that  we  have  good  reason 
for  believing  to  be  true.  Faith  advances  from  the  best  convic¬ 
tions  we  possess  to  the  only  truth  that  could  possibly  make 
them  valid,  the  perfect  goodness  of  God.  Such  a  venture  is 
no  foolish  or  wilful  act:  it  simply  sets  things  in  their  right 
order,  and  gives  the  best  things  the  best  place.  Faith  acts 
upon  a  reasonable  judgment,  and  one  that  we  cannot  reject 


THE  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF  IN  GOD 


469 


without  stultifying  our  best  selves.  The  venture  that  it 
makes,  instead  of  being  an  unmanly  thing,  or  an  escape  from 
untenable  ground  into  a  fool’s  paradise  of  confidence,  is  a 
consistent  declaration  of  the  supremacy  of  all  that  has  a  right 
to  be  supreme. 

This  language  may  sound  too  much  as  if  faith  were  mainly 
a  mental  act  based  upon  an  argument.  It  is  that,  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  extent,  for  faith  reasons,  and  reasons  soundly;  but  the 
crowning  element  in  faith,  implied  all  along  and  now  to  be 
mentioned,  shows  how  much  more  it  is.  The  Christian  faith 
has  for  its  vitalizing  force  the  element  of  personal  self-com¬ 
mitment.  A  venture  is  an  act,  and  an  act  of  the  whole  man. 
A  belief  that  God  is  worthy  to  be  trusted  becomes  faith  when 
God  is  trusted.  Theoretical  belief  vanishes,  and  in  faith  the 
soul  acts  upon  the  being  and  the  goodness  of  God.  It  not 
only  beholds  but  casts  itself  upon  the  God  who  is  good  and 
doeth  good,  whose  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works,  the 
faithful  Creator,  the  righteous  Father,  the  holy  Saviour.  This 
character  of  faith  is  too  secret  and  sacred  to  be  minutely  de¬ 
scribed  :  it  lies  in  the  region  of  mystery,  for  the  soul  itself  does 
not  understand  it,  and  sometimes  it  seems  verily  to  be  a  leap 
in  the  dark.  It  lies  in  the  region  of  ecstasy,  too,  for  here  the 
untried  is  the  glorious.  Faith  is  the  flight  of  the  soul  to  its 
home  in  the  bosom  of  its  Father.  Who  shall  describe  it? 
Who  can  tell  of  the  waverings  and  uncertainties  before  the 
flight,  or  of  the  welcome,  the  rest  and  the  infinite  peace  that 
follow  it?  Going  thus  to  his  own  place,  a  man  trusts  God 
for  himself  and  for  all  creation:  all  is  safe  in  the  Father’s 
hands,  and  his  perfect  goodness  and  redeeming  grace  are  the 
complete  satisfaction  of  the  soul.  Plainly,  when  this  has 
come  to  pass,  God  and  the  soul  have  come  into  their  right 
fellowship,  and  man  has  entered  upon  the  life  for  which  he 
was  created.  This  is  nature,  this  is  right,  and  this  is  everlast¬ 
ing  welfare.  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God  ? 

In  speaking  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  it  is  only  too 
easy  to  allow  the  divine  to  eclipse  the  human,  instead  of  illu- 


470 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 


minating  it;  and  from  this  account  of  faith  it  may  seem  as  if 
its  field  and  work  were  in  the  heavenly  world,  or  else  in  that 
secret  place  of  the  heart  where  God  and  man  meet  alone  in 
the  darkness.  But  it  would  be  a  sad  mistake  thus  to  limit 
the  sphere  and  scope  of  faith.  The  true  doctrine  of  faith  and 
works  must  not  be  lost  sight  of  through  the  passing  away  of  the 
old  phraseology.  Faith  is  an  ethical  force.  It  rules  the  life;  or 
rather,  it  opens  the  life  to  God’s  ruling.  It  brings  the  life  that 
now  is,  in  this  present  world,  under  the  moral  inspiration  of  the 
heavenly  Father.  God  knows  how  imperfect  our  response 
must  be  at  present,  and  is  more  patient  with  us  than  we  are 
with  one  another,  or  even  with  ourselves.  But  the  truth  is 
that,  to  accept  God  is  to  accept  not  only  an  immortal  hope, 
but  a  moral  standard,  valid  for  the  whole  of  eternity,  including 
to-day.  It  is  also  to  accept  a  moral  power,  and  gladly  to  submit 
one’s  self  to  its  working.  Whenever  an  act  of  faith  goes  forth, 
it  is  a  sinful  being  who  betakes  himself  to  God.  Hatred  of 
evil  on  the  human  side  and  forgiving  grace  on  the  divine  are 
implied  in  the  event.  Now,  since  Father  and  child  are  to¬ 
gether  in  the  normal  life,  the  Father’s  goodness  is  the  accepted 
type  of  the  child’s  being,  and  the  Father’s  love  is  the  means 
of  holy  transformation  to  the  child.  His  word  to  his  children 
is,  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy,  ”  and  faith  honours  the  call. 
In  proportion  as  men  believe  in  God  with  the  Christian 
faith,  there  springs  up  an  inspiration  of  purity,  a  zeal  for 
righteousness,  a  fellowship  with  the  spirit  of  Saviourhood. 
Not  only  do  there  blossom  those  graces  of  the  Spirit  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  group  under  the  name  of  personal 
religion:  all  the  social  virtues  and  humane  works  that  the 
world  can  need  or  goodness  can  inspire  spring  up  and  bring 
forth  fruit  when  the  Christian  belief  in  God  has  free  course 
and  is  glorified.  Committing  himself  to  God,  man  com¬ 
mits  himself  to  goodness,  and  to  the  promotion  of  goodness, 
after  the  likeness  of  God. 

Thus  the  Christian  belief  in  God  is  the  largest,  the  most 
exacting,  the  most  consolatory,  and  the  most  inspiring  of  all 
the  beliefs  that  are  possible  to  men.  No  man  can  rise  to  the 


THE  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF  IN  GOD 


471 


full  height  of  it,  nor  can  all  the  world  do  it  justice.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  a  faith  for  a  little  child.  Nothing  can  be 
simpler  than  to  accept  as  a  child  the  grace  that  is  sufficient 
for  the  soul — and  from  that  comes  all  the  rest.  Indeed,  the 
Master  says  that,  in  order  rightly  to  cherish  the  Christian 
faith,  a  man  must  become  as  a  little  child. 


pv 


I  ■■'-'>"•  ''■.li;'^’  ■  '  'l'-'  -'  '.iSw 

.  .,  ,■  'S'"/;;:#;}'  I' '  'W 


< 


.1' 


>*  .* 


V  V'vl 

»  ■  i<r,  V^'  i 


« 

piailiL£r:  .19  i 


■'  .':>4 


!■  ;  ■  ,  '  j-r 


tij 


t 


TO  ^^^aSffiROiP'Wi  ‘■''r' ' 

K.'4V"  wi^'i  ^  .  •,' »  ..'  »L  v..n  1 ;  .• 


A  »  '< 


•'■■■^•?*'.^’  'm 


'0f!‘:-  ^::K  -q 


*»•  V 


;  '  J 


-S  L 


V' 


(O' 


•<Vt 


.  'r'l 


W 


*• 


\'i  ' 


•  .‘i 


y-y/i 


A^■’ 


'■  V  ■ 


.r' 


<  1 1  1 ; 

i,jn  ■  :■  '  ■■■»'^.  ■  ^ J 

■  '.  ■  v'v  .  /  W  _ 


»'< 


He*': 


■'f 


fei '■:■■'  •  ■  i 


ptP'IRSI^^rM 


■£ 


J'vW 


';7<.V4»S 


*  ^  t.  .'_«  (*• 


>ii 


;  '‘.  f/f  y'i.yi 

•  *  /i _ * '  i 


.  Vi.  V 


■A  'A* ' 


i  >1 


■7.  > 


'Y*i'  i  ■''  ■  '  ■  j  •'■  'iyy\ 

’>''^  '4'^v  '3 

riXiv<fev  ,'P.f':  ■■y^. 

“  •  ■ ,  ■  -^-jy  A.uj.y.  .■>/  y 

'  it  .  V?'  • 


.  **  k.V 


,,,>r 


INDEX 


Absolute,  the,  307. 

Adoption  and  regeneration,  158. 

Agnosticism,  the  alternative  to 
Theism,  393;  objections  to,  393; 
destructive  of  the  ideas  of  provi¬ 
dence  and  evolution,  400. 

Anthropomorphism,  value  of,  in 
the  doctrine  of  God,  68,  376,  402. 

Art  among  the  evidences,  390. 

Attitude  of  God  toward  the  sinful, 
29. 

Attributes,  not  a  useful  term  in 
theology,  117. 

Baptismal  formula,  the,  24,  229. 

Belief  in  God,  the  Christian,  462; 
prerequisites  to,  465;  goes  be¬ 
yond  proof,  466;  implies  the  ven¬ 
ture  of  faith,  467;  implies  self¬ 
committal,  469. 

Bible,  the,  not  the  sole  source  of 
the  Christian  doctrine,  1. 

Character  of  God,  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  15;  according  to  Jesus,  26; 
first  to  be  considered  in  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  God,  57;  truly  revealed 
by  Jesus,  58,  215,  218;  unity  and 
consistency  of,  115;  summary 
statement  of,  132;  use  of,  in 
proof  of  his  existence,  360. 

Christ  of  the  Epistles,  the,  40. 

Christian  doctrine  of  God,  the,  de¬ 
fined,  1;  method  of  establishing, 
5;  to  be  reconsidered  in  every 
age,  51;  first  a  religious  doctrine, 
22,  53,  135. 

Communication  of  God  with  man, 
a  sure  result  of  the  creative  rela¬ 
tion,  144;  with  all  men  and  al¬ 
ways,  148,  463;  reasons  why  it 
has  so  often  been  overlooked, 
149. 

Conflict  of  attributes  in  God  impos¬ 
sible,  117;  often  assumed  in  the¬ 
ology,  121. 


Conflict,  moral,  a  worthy  method 
of  life,  455. 

Controversy,  not  the  method  of 
promise,  9,  55. 

Creation  of  man  by  God,  signifi¬ 
cance  of,  140;  involves  obliga¬ 
tion,  141;  manner  of,  177. 

Creation  of  the  universe,  283;  time 
and  manner  of,  unimportant  to 
doctrine,  284;  motive  of  God  in, 
284;  whether  instantaneous  or 
eternal,  285. 

Creative  relation  of  God,  inclusive 
of  all  other  relations,  136,  151, 
161;  determined  by  his  char¬ 
acter,  142;  everlasting,  152; 
foundation  of  the  fatherly, 
155. 

Creator,  135;  a  faithful  Creator, 
144,  288. 

Deism,  possible  once,  impossible 
now,  323. 

Development,  historical,  of  the 
doctrine  of  God,  47;  causes  of  its 
imperfectness,  48;  of  its  success, 
50;  in  what  sense  a  source  of  doc¬ 
trine,  51. 

Divinity  of  Christ,  the  best  evi¬ 
dence  of,  224. 

East  and  West,  differing  as  to  the 
value  of  existence,  458. 

Eternal,  the,  294;  durational  sense 
of  the  word,  294;  qualitative 
sense,  295;  eternal  life,  299. 

Ethical  conception  of  God,  11; 
older  than  the  Bible,  12;  imper¬ 
fect  in  the  Old  Testament,  19; 
according  to  Jesus,  36;  in  moral 
government,  174,  189;  in  provi¬ 
dence,  200;  in  salvation,  213. 

Ethics,  early  associated  with  re¬ 
ligion,  12. 

Evil,  not  unmixed  with  good,  439; 
question  of  the  outcome,  460. 


473 


474 


INDEX 


Evolutionary  method  in  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  man,  139,  144,  177. 

Existence  of  God,  not  the  first 
thing  to  be  proved,  56,  357;  a 
question  of  fact,  358;  undemon- 
strable,  361;  the  historic  argu¬ 
ments  for,  364;  nature  of  the  evi¬ 
dence,  372;  evidence  for,  from 
the  rational,  375;  from  the  spirit¬ 
ual,  402. 

Experience,  the  early  Christian,  39; 
the  preserver  of  the  doctrine  of 
God,  50. 

Father,  Jesus’  name  for  God,  31; 
the  favorite  name  in  the  Epistles, 
42;  the  most  Christian  name, 
153;  what  Jesus  meant  by  it,  33, 
154. 

Fatherhood,  the  tenderer  name  for 
creatorship,  155;  does  not  imply 
good  sonship  in  men,  156;  its 
meaning  realized  in  Christian 
life,  157;  single,  not  double,  161, 
248;  implies  human  brotherhood, 
163. 

Foreknowledge,  a  reality  from  our 
point  of  view,  not  from  God’s, 
347. 

Freedom,  belongs  both  to  God  and 
to  men,  169. 

Gentile  influence  upon  Christian 
thought,  43,  49. 

God: 

Ethically  known  of  old,  11; 
revealed  in  the  testimony  of 
Jesus,  20;  discerned  in  the  early 
Christian  experience,  39;  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  historical  develop¬ 
ment  of  Christianity,  47. 

In  himself:  a  Being  in  whom 
character  is  the' primal  element, 
56;  the  perfect  and  typical  per¬ 
son,  59;  fulfilling  all  relations  by 
virtue  of  his  perfect  goodness, 
70;  the  elements  in  whose  good¬ 
ness  are  Love,  83;  Holiness,  94; 
Wisdom,  107;  all  united  in  a 
harmonious  character,  115. 

In  his  relations  with  men:  the 
Creator  of  mankind,  135;  the 
Father,  in  pursuance  of  his 
creatorship,  153;  the  Sovereign 
over  moral  beings,  174;  the  ad¬ 


ministrator  of  a  gracious  Provi¬ 
dence,  192;  at  heart  a  Saviour, 
and  manifested  as  a  Saviour  in 
history,  212;  interpreted  as  Trin¬ 
ity  and  Triunity,  227;  variously 
and  richly  known  in  human  life, 
individual  and  collective,  248. 

In  his  relations  with  the  uni¬ 
verse:  the  only  God,  265;  one 
Unit  of  Existence,  while  the  uni¬ 
verse  is  the  other,  272;  a  Spirit, 
276;  the  Source  of  the  universe, 

•  282;  the  Self-existent  One,  289; 
the  Eternal  One,  294;  the  Infinite 
God,  299;  the  Unchangeable,  309; 
the  Transcendent  God,  surpassing 
and  excelling  the  universe,  311; 
the  Immanent  God,  most  inti¬ 
mately  inhabiting  the  universe, 
320;  the  Omniscient,  knowing 
both  all  and  everything,  343; 
the  Omnipotent,  Master  of  all, 
351. 

Evidence  of  his  being,  357; 
from  the  rational,  375;  from  the 
spiritual,  402;  his  relation  to  the 
method  of  the  universe,  to  suffer¬ 
ing  and  to  sin,  431;  the  nature  of 
belief  in  him,  462. 

Goodness,  the  same  in  all  moral 
beings,  74;  the  elements  that 
compose  it,  in  man,  77;  in  God, 
80;  unity  of,  in  God,  131. 

Grace,  defined,  89. 

“He,”  inadequacy  of  the  pronoun 
for  representing  God,  67. 

Holiness  of  God,  94;  ethicizing  of  a 
lower  idea,  94;  according  to  Jesus 
96;  negatively,  freedom  from 
evil,  97 ;  positively,  fulness  of 
good,  99;  the  key  to  moral  sig¬ 
nificance,  101;  exacting,  103; 
gladdening,  105. 

Holiness  and  love,  apparently  but 
not  really  in  contrast,  116;  the 
solemn  and  the  tender  in  the 
thought  of  God,  122;  each  in¬ 
cludes  the  other,  125;  each  sug¬ 
gests  salvation  for  the  sinful,  126. 

Holy  Spirit,  the,  continuing  the 
work  of  God  as  Saviour,  225; 
origin  of  the  name,  230;  is  God 
in  man,  245;  the  various  work  of, 
252. 


/ 


INDEX 


475 


Immanence  of  God,  320;  quite  con¬ 
sistent  with  transcendence,  321; 
evidences  of,  322 ;  how  related  to 
omnipresence,  329;  not  identity 
with  the  universe,  330;  a  creative 
presence,  331;  causing  the  uni¬ 
formity  of  nature,  yet  free,  333; 
a  self-communicating  presence 
with  spiritual  beings,  335;  giving 
divine  meaning  to  life,  337 ;  some 
inferences  from,  342. 

Immortality,  152. 

Impersonal  method  of  the  universe, 
432;  significance  of,  445. 

Incarnation,  possible  to  God,  244. 

Independence  of  God,  not  incon¬ 
sistent  with  duty  to  his  crea¬ 
tures,  141,  288. 

Individualism,  insufficient  as  a  doc¬ 
trine  of  human  life,  163,  255. 

Indwelling  of  God,  normal  to  man, 
251. 

Infinite,  the,  299;  in  what  sense  a 
religious  conception,  300;  in  con¬ 
trast  with  the  finite,  301;  con¬ 
sistent  with  personality,  303; 
does  not  absorb  the  finite, 
305. 

Inspiration,  belief  in,  414. 

Institutions  of  religion,  413. 

Israel,  how  related  to  God  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Old  Testament,  16; 
according  to  the  New,  44. 

Jesus,  his  testimony  concerning 
God,  20;  not  a  metaphysical  but 
a  religious  teacher,  22;  his  view 
of  God  as  Father,  31;  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  34,  262;  sum¬ 
mary  of  his  teaching  about  God, 
37;  Saviour  as  expressing  God’s 
saviourhood,  214;  person  of,  239. 

Kingdom  of  God,  the,  according  to 
Jesus,  34;  relation  to  the  Father¬ 
hood,  35,  263;  relation  to  com¬ 
mon  life,  261. 

Knowledge  of  God,  is  an  acquaint¬ 
ance,  25;  whether  direct  percep¬ 
tion  or  not,  254. 

Knowledge,  finite  an  argument  for 
infinite,  397. 

Law  of  God  written  in  human  na¬ 
ture,  179;  its  contents,  180. 


Life,  prophetic  of  reason,  378;  of 
morality,  404. 

Likeness  of  God  in  man,  137;  ren¬ 
ders  revelation  and  incarnation 
possible,  145;  the  light  that  it 
gives  on  the  person  of  Jesus,  243. 

Logos,  the,  45,  232,  241,  331. 

Lord’s  Prayer,  the,  39,  162. 

Love  of  God,  83;  defined  from  hu¬ 
man  love,  84;  ‘‘God  is  love,”  86, 
91;  the  world  its  object,  88; 
reasons  for  imperfection  in  the 
doctrine  of,  90;  essential  and 
eternal,  93. 

Miracles,  considered  under  the  head 
of  Providence,  203;  false  defini¬ 
tions  of,  and  the  true  one,  205; 
the  question  of,  not  vitally  im¬ 
portant,  206;  relation  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  to,  207;  relation  to  the 
doctrine  of  an  indwelling  God, 
209;  to  providence,  211. 

Monotheism,  265;  in  Hebraism, 
268;  in  Christian  doctrine,  269; 
in  modern  thought,  270;  not  a 
negative  doctrine,  271. 

Moral  Government  of  God,  174; 
significance  of  its  universality, 
175;  conditions  of,  in  divine  and 
human  nature,  176;  principles  of, 
180;  what  sin  is,  under,  183;  a 
reign  of  righteousness,  186;  of 
gracious  intent,  191. 

Moral  order  without  a  personal  God 
impossible,  61. 

Mystical  vision,  the,  254. 

Objection,  the  great,  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Doctrine  of  God,  431;  three 
forms  of,  432;  not  answerable  by 
demonstration,  435;  ambiguities 
in,  considered,  438;  considered  at 
length,  441-462. 

Omnipotence  of  God,  means  mas¬ 
tery  and  sufficiency  rather  than 
mere  power,  351;  moral  as  well 
as  physical,  353. 

Omnipresence  of  God,  a  natural  at¬ 
tribute,  yet  with  full  religious 
meaning,  324;  the  presence  not 
of  an  “essence,”  but  of  God  him¬ 
self,  326;  essential  to  religion, 
328;  how  related  to  immanence, 
329. 


476 


INDEX 


Omniscience  of  God,  343;  a  knowl¬ 
edge  of  everything  and  of  the 
whole,  344;  both  simultaneous 
and  successive,  345;  relation  of, 
to  foreknowledge,  347;  knowl¬ 
edge  of  what  might  have  been, 
348;  a  sympathetic  knowledge, 
349. 

Ontological  argument,  the,  366. 

Order  of  discussion,  the  order  of 
religion,  56,  135,  265. 

Outreaching  after  God,  how  much 
of  man  is  involved  in,  411;  best 
accounted  for  by  the  existence  of 
God,  421. 

Paley,  retirement  of  his  argument, 
368. 

Pantheism,  relation  of,  to  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  God,  265. 

Partialism,  impossible  in  the  true 
doctrine  of  God,  92. 

Paul’s  view  of  history,  44. 

Person  of  Jesus,  224,  239;  in  what 
light  to  be  understood,  224,  241. 

Personality,  human,  working  con¬ 
stituents  of,  62;  never  perfect, 
64;  not  the  typical  personality, 
66;  yet  a  true  key  to  knowledge 
of  God,  69;  understood  not  by 
analysis  but  from  its  works, 
242. 

Personality  of  God,  in  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament,  14;  an  ancient  concep¬ 
tion,  59;  vital  to  the  Christian 
doctrine,  60;  essential  to  his  hav¬ 
ing  character,  61;  contains  the 
same  elements  as  human  person¬ 
ality,  61;  the  typical  personality, 
66;  in  the  modern  sense,  a  single 
personality,  231. 

Persons  of  the  Trinity,  237. 

Philosophy  among  the  evidences, 
387. 

Poetry  among  the  evidences,  388. 

Polytheism,  sources  of,  266;  de¬ 
velops  into  pantheism  rather 
than  monotheism,  268. 

Power,  not  a  proper  object  of  wor¬ 
ship,  352. 

Powers  of  man,  developed  in  re¬ 
sponse  to  existing  realities,  424. 

Predestination  of  human  acts,  in¬ 
consistent  with  human  nature, 
170. 


Presuppositions  of  modern  thought 
371. 

Providence,  192;  the  central  idea 
of,  194;  not  of  an  absent  God  in¬ 
terposing,  194,  but  of  God  in¬ 
dwelling,  200;  the  doctrine  of, 
includes  the  question  of  miracles, 
203. 

Purity  asserting  itself  graciously  as 
well  as  exact ingly,  129. 

Rational,  the,  evidence  from,  for 
the  being  of  God,  375;  defined, 
375;  a  function  of  life,  379;  char¬ 
acteristic  of  the  universe,  382. 

Reconciliation  of  love  and  holiness 
unnecessary,  131. 

Regeneration  and  adoption,  158. 

Religion,  origin  of,  11;  union  of, 
with  ethics,  12;  determinative  of, 
the  Christian  doctrine,  56;  three 
types  of,  247 ;  includes  relation  to 
men  as  well  as  to  God,  257;  its 
elements  always  the  same,  407. 

Retribution,  a  principle  of  moral 
government,  181,  187. 

Revelation,  nature  of,  13;  pledged 
in  God’s  creatorship,  145;  made 
in  Jesus,  58,  215;  broader  than 
the  Bible,  428;  the  primary  fact 
in  religion,  463. 

Righteousness  of  God,  186;  its 
character  as  fairness,  188;  deal¬ 
ing  with  the  sinful,  189,  191; 
implies  a  hygienic  element  in 
life,  190. 

Sacrifice,  414. 

Salvation,  an  ethical  fact,  213; 
originating  in  God,  214;  revealed 
by  Jesus,  214;  illustrated,  219; 
the  eternal  work  of  God  in,  221; 
will  it  come  to  all  ?  226. 

Saviourhood,  essential  and  eternal 
in  the  nature  of  God,  219;  its 
work  continued  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  225. 

Science  among  the  evidences,  386. 

Self-existence,  defined,  289;  an  un¬ 
avoidable  conception,  290;  more 
reasonably  affirmed  of  God  than 
of  the  universe,  291;  some  infer¬ 
ences  from,  293. 

Sensation,  sufficient  to  produce 
rationality,  380. 


INDEX 


477 


Severity  of  God,  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  16;  according  to  Jesus,  36; 
in  the  Epistles,  43. 

Sin,  defined,  183;  manner  of  its  en¬ 
trance,  184;  is  against  God,  185; 
is  suggestive  of  salvation  to  love 
and  to  holiness,  126;  objection 
founded  upon,  434;  attempts  to 
solve  the  mystery  of,  448;  not  an 
intruder  in  God’s  order,  450; 
account  of  the  origin  of,  451; 
responsibility  for,  454;  signifi¬ 
cance  of,  455. 

Sin-bearing  of  God,  221. 

Social  nature,  an  element  in  per¬ 
sonality,  62;  God  speaking  to 
men  through,  255. 

Sonship  to  God,  inalienable,  156; 
fulfilled  in  the  Christian  life,  157, 

Sovereignty  of  God,  164;  paternal. 
166;  seeks  the  doing  of  his  ethical 
rather  than  of  his  decretive  will, 
167;  exercised  over  beings  gifted 
with  freedom,  168;  includes  con¬ 
trol  over  conditions  of  life,  171. 

Spirit,  meaning  of,  as  a  name  for 
God,  68,  276. 

Spiritual,  the,  meaning  of,  402;  im¬ 
plies  an  adequate  foundation  for 
itself,  411;  implies  a  perfect  God, 
419. 

Suffering,  objection  founded  upon, 
433;  mingled  with  pleasure  in 
the  world,  438;  not  an  intruder 
in  God’s  order,  442;  significance 
of,  444. 

Supernatural,  the,  difficulty  in  de¬ 
fining,  339;  God  is  the  super¬ 
natural,  340. 


Teleological  argument,  the,  367. 

Theism  of  Jesus,  27. 

Transcendence  of  God,  311;  does 
not  signify  remoteness,  313,  but 
superiority  to  the  universe,  316; 
the  qualities  in  which  it  consists, 
317. 

Trinity,  doctrine  of  the,  227;  ma¬ 
terials  for,  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  228;  its  later  form,  230; 
framed  to  justify  faith  in  Christ, 
231;  should  have  been  named 
doctrine  of  Triunity,  233;  diffi¬ 
culties  of,  233;  related  chiefly  to 
the  doctrine  of  salvation,  235; 
taken  up  into  the  modern  the¬ 
ism,  238;  present  significance  of, 
248. 

Unchangeableness,  349. 

Units  of  existence,  the  two, 
272.^ 

Unity  in  the  character  of  God,  115, 
132;  love  and  holiness  in  har¬ 
mony,  118;  both  desire  to  save, 
125. 

Universe,  the,  modern  conception 
of,  54;  not  identical  with  God, 
273;  whether  it  had  a  beginning, 
283;  characterized  by  rationality 
382;  educator  of  man,  385;  ob¬ 
jection  from  its  impersonal  meth¬ 
od,  432. 

Wisdom  of  God,  107;  defined,  108; 
the  practical  view  of,  109;  crea¬ 
tive  as  well  as  directive,  111; 
adequate,  113. 

Wrath  of  God,  186. 


c' 


,  '  .  V,,.  li'  ^'vVrr  .M.t  V 

','  './' ,'i ' 

.  ’  ■''.  v  swi'^f 

‘A  ’"-  * 

>?  t’.‘  . ; '  Y-^ 


*'  •  •  ■.  ff, i  <  'fv  ’JW  -, 

^  :-.v 

■  -  .'  ■  ■■-■<<  V  •  ■  I  '  *■'!  •  ■,'  '  i- 

^  ,>H  ■  '  ■  ■'  ■  ■ 


^^,'.v,«  ,  ■:  .,  (  ■'  f  ' 

■  h']  *?''•''•■  ^  .*‘{ '*•'■•■.  V  'Vi'  .  ,  . 

V  ~~^A  i  /*  i  ■•  , 

'  '■  ■'  ■'■  .■®’  ,■  ’  '  ' '  ‘,N*''  ' 

'  1  *.  t  -  .'■.*  .  ■  ^  _  '  •  ■ 


■  ‘  n  ' 


•  -N*'' 

■  i-',’.-'  .  .  y  t  1  ■'  , 

•  .  ^  #  'j'W  '■*  '‘■5''' 


KX  > 


'::v.  /'-J 


I  '.V.  >•  >*•. ,  ,  •  -V-  i 

■1'  ' 


tv; .  '  . 


5I'. 

^  "'M,  iiSlii 


The  International  Theological  Library 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 

niCnt.  By  Professor  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 

“As  a  whole  there  is  probably  no  book  in  the  English  Language  equal 
to  this  ‘Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament, ^for  the 
student  who  desires  to  understand  what  the  modern  criticism  thinks 
about  the  Bible.” — Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  in  The  Outlook. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


A  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age. 

By  Arthur  C.  McGiefert,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

“  The  clearness,  self-consistency,  and  force  of  the  whole  impression  of 
Apostolic  Christianity  with  which  we  leave  this  book  goes  far  to  guar¬ 
antee  its  permanent  value  and  success.” — The  Expositor. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


Christian  Ethics.  By  Newman  Smythe,  D.D. 

“As  this  book  is  the  latest,  so  it  is  the  fullest  and  most  attractive  treat¬ 
ment  of  the  subject  that  we  are  familiar  with.  Patient  and  exhaustive 
in  its  method  of  inquiry,  and  stimulating  and  suggestive  in  the  topic  it 
handles,  we  are  confident  that  it  will  be  a  help  to  the  task  of  the  moral 
understanding  and  interpretation  of  human  life.” — The  Living  Church. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


Apologetics ;  or,  Christianity  Defensively  Stated. 

By  Alexander  Balmain  Bruce,  D.D. 

“  We  have  not  for  a  long  time  taken  a  book  in  hand  that  is  more 
stimulating  to  faith.  .  .  .  Without  commenting  further,  we  repeat  that 
this  volume  is  the  ablest,  most  scholarly,  most  advanced,  and  sharpest 
defence  of  Christianity  that  has  ever  been  written.  No  theological 
library  should  be  without  it.” — Zion's  Herald. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


Old  Testament  History,  by  henry  preserved  smith,  d.d. 

“  Prof.  Smith  has,  by  his  comprehensive  and  vitalized  history,  laid  all  who 
care  for  the  Old  Testament  under  great  obligations.” — The  Independent. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament.  By  George  B. 

Stevens,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

“  It  is  a  fine  example  of  painstaking,  discriminating,  impartial  research 
and  statement.” — The  Congregationalist.  Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


History  of  Christian  Doctrine.  By  George  P.  Fisher, 

D.D.,  LL.D. 

“  It  is  only  just  to  say  that  Dr.  Fisher  has  produced  the  best  History 
of  Doctrine  that  we  have  in  English.” — The  New  York  Evangelist. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


The  Christian  Pastor  and  the  Working  Church. 

By  Washington  Gladden,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

“A  comprehensive,  inspiring  and  helpful  guide  to  a  busy  pastor.  One 
finds  in  it  a  multitude  of  practical  suggestions  for  the  development  of 
the  spiritual  and  working  life  of  the  Church,  and  the  answer  to  many 
problems  that  are  a  constant  perplexity  to  the  faithful  minister.” 

— The  Christian  Intelligencer. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


Christian  Institutions.  By  Alexander  V.  B.  Allen,  D.D. 

“  Professor  Allen’s  Christian  Institutions  may  be  regarded  as  the  most 
important  permanent  contribution  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States  has  yet  made  to  general  theological 
thought.” — The  American  Journal  of  Theology. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  A.  B.  Davidson, 

D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.Litt. 

“  We  hope  every  clergyman  will  not  rest  content  until  he  has  procured 
and  studied  this  most  admirable  and  useful  book.  Every  really  useful 
question  relating  to  man  —  his  nature,  his  fall,  and  his  redemption, 
his  present  life  or  grace,  his  life  after  death,  his  future  life,  is 
treated  of.” — The  Canadian  Churchman.  Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation.  By  George  B. 

Stevens,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

“  Professor  Stevens  has  performed  a  task  of  great  importance,  certain  to 
exert  wide  and  helpful  influence  in  settling  the  minds  of  men.  He  has 
treated  the  subject  historically  and  has  given  to  Christ  the  first  place  in 
interpreting  his  own  mission.” — Congregationalist  and  Christian  World. 

Crown  8 VO.  $2.50  net. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

The  Ancient  Catholic  Church.  By  Robert  Rainy,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

“As  a  comprehensive  work  on  the  formative  stage  of  the  Church’s  ex¬ 
perience  the  volume  will  easily  find  its  place  in  the  front  rank  among 
books  on  the  subject  composed  in  the  English  language.” — The  Interior. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


The  Reformation  in  Germany.  By  Thomas  M.  Lindsay, 

M.A.,  D.D. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


The  Reformation  in  Lands  Beyond  Germany.  By  Thomas 

M.  Lindsay,  D.D. 

“  Together  these  two  volumes  will  at  once  take  their  place  as  the  clas¬ 
sical  English  History  of  the  Reformation.” — The  Expository  Times. 

“  The  good  balance  of  material  which  he  has  attained  by  a  self-denying 
exclusion,  as  well  as  by  much  research  and  inclusion  of  fresh  material, 
makes  the  work  a  real  addition  to  our  materials  for  study.” 

— The  Congregationalist. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament.  By  Casper  Rene 

Gregory,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

“  The  book  is  a  treasury  of  learning,  and  its  fairness  in  dealing  with  the 
matter  in  hand  is  admirable.  From  first  to  last,  the  purpose  of  the 
author  is  not  to  show  upon  how  slight  basis  our  confidence  in  the  can- 
onicity  of  the  New  Testament  is  based,  but  rather  upon  how  solid  a 
foundation  our  confidence  rests.” — Journal  and  Messenger. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


The  Greek  and  Eastern  Churches.  By  Walter  F.  Adeney, 

M.A.,  D.D. 

“  It  seems  to  me  an  excellent  and  most  useful  piece  of  work.  I  do 
not  know  anything  in  English  which  covers  the  same  ground  and 
am  sure  Dr.  Adeney  has  put  us  all  in  his  debt  by  his  scholarly,  well- 
balanced  and  judicious  treatment.” — Trof.  William  Adams  Brown. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  God.  By  William  N.  Clarke,  D.  D. 

Crown  8vo.  %2.^o  net.  Postage  Additional. 


The  International 

Critical  Commentary 

On  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments 


'  EDITORS’  PREFACE 

There  are  now  before  the  public  many  Commentaries, 
written  by  British  and  American  divines,  of  a  popular 
or  homiletical  character.  The  Cambridge  Bible  for 
Schools y  the  Handbooks  for  Bible  Classes  and  Private  Students y 
The  Speaker' s  Co7n7nentary ,  The  Popular  Co7n77ientary  (Schaff), 
The  Expositor' s  BiblCy  and  other  similar  series,  have  their 
special  place  and  importance.  But  they  do  not  enter  into  the 
field  of  Critical  Biblical  scholarship  occupied  by  such  series  of 
Commentaries  as  the  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
A.  T.  ;  De  Wette’s  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
N.  T;  Meyer’s  Kritisch-exegetischer  Kom7nentar ;  Keil  and 
Delitzsch’s  Biblischer  Commentar  ilber  das  A.  T ;  Lange’s 
Theologisch-homiletisches  Bibelwerk ;  Nowack’s  Handkommentar 
zum  A.  T.  ;  Holtzmann’s  Handko7n7ne7itar  zum  N.  T  Several 
of  these  have  been  translated,  edited,  and  in  some  cases  enlarged 
and  adapted,  for  the  English-speaking  public ;  others  are  in 
process  of  translation.  But  no  corresponding  series  by  British 
or  American  divines  has  hitherto  been  produced.  The  way  has 
been  prepared  by  special  Commentaries  by  Cheyne,  Ellicott, 
Kalisch,  Lightfoot,  Perowne,  Westcott,  and  others;  and  the 
time  has  come,  in  the  judgment  of  the  projectors  of  this  enter¬ 
prise,  when  it  is  practicable  to  combine  British  and  American 
scholars  in  the  production  of  a  critical,  comprehensive 
Commentary  that  will  be  abreast  of  modern  biblical  scholarship, 
and  in  a  measure  lead  its  van. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


Messrs.  Charles  Scribner’s  Sons  of  New  York,  and  Messrs. 
T.  &  T.  Clark  of  Edinburgh,  propose  to  publish  such  a  series 
of  Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  under  the 
editorship  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  in  America,  and 
of  Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  for  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  for  the  New  Testament,  in 
Great  Britain. 

The  Commentaries  will  be  international  and  inter-confessional, 
and  will  be  free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical  bias.  They 
will  be  based  upon  a  thorough  critical  study  of  the  original  texts 
of  the  Bible,  and  upon  critical  methods  of  interpretation.  They 
are  designed  chiefly  for  students  and  clergymen,  and  will  be 
written  in  a  compact  style.  Each  book  will  be  preceded  by  an 
Introduction,  stating  the  results  of  criticism  upon  it,  and  discuss¬ 
ing  impartially  the  questions  still  remaining  open.  The  details 
of  criticism  will  appear  in  their  proper  place  in  the  body  of  the 
Commentary.  Each  section  of  the  Text  will  be  introduced 
with  a  paraphrase,  or  summary  of  contents.  Technical  details 
of  textual  and  philological  criticism  will,  as  a  rule,  be  kept 
distinct  from  matter  of  a  more  general  character ;  and  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  exegetical  notes  will  be  arranged,  as  far  as 
possible,  so  as  to  be  serviceable  to  students  not  acquainted  with 
Hebrew.  The  History  of  Interpretation  of  the  Books  will  be 
dealt  with,  when  necessary,  in  the  Introductions,  with  critical 
notices  of  the  most  important  literature  of  the  subject.  Historical 
and  Archaeological  questions,  as  well  as  questions  of  Biblical 
Theology,  are  included  in  the  plan  of  the  Commentaries,  but 
not  Practical  or  Homiletical  Exegesis.  The  Volumes  will  con¬ 
stitute  a  uniform  series. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

GENESIS.  The  Rev.  John  Skinner,  D.D.,  Principal  and  Professor  of 
Old  Testament  Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Presbyterian  Church 
of  England,  Cambridge,  England. 

EXODUS.  The  Rev.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
University  of  Edinburgh. 

LEVITICUS.  J.  F.  Stenning,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford. 

NUMBERS.  The  Rev.  G.  BuCHANAN  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  \_No'w  Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Pro¬ 
fessor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  \Now  Ready. 

JOSHUA.  The  Rev,  George  Adam  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  United  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

JUDGES.  The  Rev.  George  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Theol¬ 
ogy,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

SAMUEL.  The  Rev.  H.  P.  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Literature  and  History  of  Religion,  Meadville,  Pa.  \^No'w  Ready. 

KINGS.  The  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  LL.D.,  President 
and  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Cognate  Languages,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York  City. 

CHRONICLES.  The  Rev.  Edward  L.  Curtis,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  The  Rev.  L.W.  Batten,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Rector 
of  St.  Mark’s  Church,  New  York  City,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

PSALMS.  The  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Graduate  Pro¬ 
fessor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  \2  vols.  Now  Readv 

PROVERBS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  \_No'w  Ready, 

JOB.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  He¬ 
brew,  Oxford. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ISAIAH.  Chaps.  I-XXXIX.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

ISAIAH.  Chaps.  XL-LXVI.  The  Rev.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Dean 
of  the  Theological  Faculty  of  the  Victoria  University  and  Professor  of 
Biblical  Exegesis  in  the  University  of  Manchester,  England. 

JEREMIAH.  The  Rev.  A.  E.  Kirkpatrick,  D. D.,  Dean  of  Ely,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Cambridge,  England. 

EZEKIEL.  The  Rev.  G.  A.  CooKE,  M.A.,  Oriel  Professor  of  the  Inter¬ 
pretation  of  Holy  Scripture,  University  of  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  Charles  F. 
Burney,  D.  Litt.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Hebrew,  St.  John’s  College,  Oxford. 

DANIEL.  The  Rev.  John  P.  Peters,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia,  now  Rector  of  St. 
Michael’s  Church,  New  York  City. 

AMOS  AND  HOSEA.  W.  R.  Harper,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  \Now  Ready. 

MICAH  TO  HAGGAI.  Prof.  John  P.  Smith,  University  of  Chicago; 
Prof.  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York;  W.  Hayes  Ward,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Editor  of  The  Independent,  New 
York;  Prof.  Julius  A.  Bewer,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York, 
and  Prof.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Boston  University. 

ZECHARIAH  TO  JONAH.  Prof.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Prof.  John 
P.  Smith  and  Prof.  J.  A.  Bewer. 

ESTHER.  The  Rev.  L.  B.  Baton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hart¬ 
ford  Theological  Seminary.  [Now  Ready. 

ECCLESIASTES.  Prof.  George  A.  Barton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Bibli¬ 
cal  Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa.  \^A^ow  Ready. 

RUTH,  SONG  OF  SONGS  AND  LAMENTATIONS.  Rev.  CHARLES  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt. ,  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Sym¬ 
bolics,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 


.  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

ST.  MATTHEW.  The  Rev.  WILLOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  and 
Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew,  Exeter  College,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

ST.  MARK.  Rev.  E.  P.  Gould,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Literature,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia.  \Now  Ready. 


ST.  LUKE.  The  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  sometime  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  \Now  Ready. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ST.  JOHN.  The  Very  Rev.  John  Henry  Bernard,  D.D.,  Dean  of  St. 
Patrick’s  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity,  University  of  Dublin. 

HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  WIL¬ 
LOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity  and  Hebrew, 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

ACTS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Turner,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  H.  N.  Bate,  M.A.,  Examining  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop  of  London. 

ROMANS.  The  Rev.  WILLIAM  Sanday,  D.D.,  LIv. D.,  Lady  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev. 
A.  C.  Headlam,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King’s  College,  London. 

\^Now  Ready. 

CORINTHIANS.  The  Right  Rev.  Arch.  Robertson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lord 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  and  Dawson  Walker, 
D.D.,  Theological  Tutor  in  the  University  of  Durham. 

GALATIANS.  The  Rev.  Ernest  D.  Burton,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Literature,  University  of  Chicago. 

EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS.  The  Rev.  T.  K.  ABBOTT,  B.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  now 
Librarian  of  the  same.  \Now  Ready. 

PHILIPPIANS  AND  PHILEMON.  The  Rev.  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
D.  D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City.  \Now  Ready. 

THESSA  LON  IANS.  The  Rev.  James  E.  Frame,  M.A.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  Walter  Lock,  D.D.,  Warden 
of  Keble  College  and  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

HEBREWS.  The  Rev.  A.  Nairne,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  King’s 
College,  London. 

ST.  JAMES.  The  Rev.  James  H.  Ropes,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

PETER  AND  JUDE.  The  Rev.  CHARLES  BiGG,  D.D.,  sometime  Regius 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

\_Now  Ready. 

THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST.  JOHN.  The  Rev.  E.  A.  Brooke,  B.D.,  Fellow 
and  Divinity  Lecturer  in  King’s  College,  Cambridge. 

REVELATION.  The  Rev.  ROBERT  H.  CHARLES,  M.A.,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University  of  Dublin. 


The 

International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

Numbers.  By  the  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

“Most  Bible  readers  have  the  impression  that  ‘Numbers’  is  a  dull 
book  only  relieved  by  the  brilliancy  of  the  Balaam  chapters  and  some 
snatches  of  old  Hebrew  songs,  but,  as  Prof.  Gray  shows  with  admirable 
skill  and  insight,  its  historical  and  religious  value  is  not  that  which  lies 
on  the  surface.  Prof.  Gray’s  Commentary  is  distinguished  by  fine 
scholarship  and  sanity  of  judgment;  it  is  impossible  to  commend  it  too 
warmly.” — Saturday  Review  (London). 

Crown  8vo.  $3.00  net. 


Deuteronomy.  By  the  Rev.  S.  R.  driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

“  It  is  a  pleasure  to  see  at  last  a  really  critical  Old  Testament  com¬ 
mentary  in  English  upon  a  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  especially 
one  of  such  merit.  This  I  find  superior  to  any  other  Commentary  in 
any  language  upon  Deuteronomy.” 

Professor  E.  L.  Curtis,  of  Yale  University. 

Crown  8vo.  $3.00  net. 


Judges.  By  Rev.  George  Foot  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Theology  in  Harvard  University. 

“The  work  is  done  in  an  atmosphere  of  scholarly  interest  and  in¬ 
difference  to  dogmatism  and  controversy,  which  is  at  least  refreshing. 
...  It  is  a  noble  introduction  to  the  moral  forces,  ideas  and  influences 
that  controlled  the  period  of  the  Judges,  and  a  model  of  what  a 
historical  commentary,  with  a  practical  end  in  view,  should  be.” 

— The  Independent. 

Crown  8vo.  $3.00  net. 


The  Books  of  Samuel.  By  Rev.  Henry  Preserved  Smith,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Literature  and  History  of  Religion,  Meadville,  Pa. 

“  Professor  Smith’s  Commentary  will  for  some  time  be  the  standard 
work  on  Samuel,  and  we  heartily  congratulate  him  on  scholarly  work 
so  faithfully  accomplished.” — The  Athenaeum. 


Crown  8vo.  $3.00  net. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

The  Book  of  Psalms.  By  Chaeles  Augustus  Briggs,  D.D., 

D.Litt.,  Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  and  Emilie  Grace  Briggs,  B.D. 

“  Christian  scholarship  seems  here  to  have  reached  the  highest  level  yet 
attained  in  study  of  the  book  which  in  religious  importance  stands  next 
to  the  Gospels.  His  work  upon  it  is  not  likely  to  be  excelled  in  learning, 
both  massive  and  minute,  by  any  volume  of  the  International  Series,  to 
which  it  belongs.” — TJie  Outlook. 

2  Volumes.  Crown  8vo.  Price,  $3.00  each  net. 


Proverbs.  By  the  Rev.  Crawford  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew  in  Harvard  University. 

“  This  volume  has  the  same  characteristics  of  thoroughness  and  pains¬ 
taking  scholarship  as  the  preceding  issues  of  the  series.  In  the  critical 
treatment  of  the  text,  in  noting  the  various  readings  and  the  force  of 
the  words  in  the  original  Hebrew,  it  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired. 

Crown  8vo.  $3.00  net. 


Amos  and  Hosea.  By  William  Rainey  Harper,  Ph.D.,  LL.D., 

late  Professor  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literature  and  President  of  the 
University  of  Chicago. 

“  He  has  gone,  with  characteristic  minuteness,  not  only  into  the  analysis 
and  discussion  of  each  point,  endeavoring  in  every  case  to  be  thoroughly 
exhaustive,  but  also  into  the  history  of  exegesis  and  discussion.  Nothing 
at  all  worthy  of  consideration  has  been  passed  by.  The  consequence  is 
that  when  one  carefully  studies  what  has  been  brought  together  in  this 
volume,  either  upon  some  passage  of  the  two  prophets  treated,  or  upon 
some  question  of  critical  or  antiquarian  importance  in  the  introductory 
portion  of  the  volume,  one  feels  that  he  has  obtained  an  adequately 
exhaustive  view  of  the  subject.” — The  Interior. 

Crown  8vo.  $3.00  net. 


Esther.  By  L.  B.  Baton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hartford 
Theological  Seminary. 

This  scholarly  and  critical  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Esther  presents 
in  full  the  remarkable  additions  to  the  Massoretic  text  and  the  varia¬ 
tions  in  the  various  versions  beginning  with  the  Greek  translation  and 
continuing  through  the  Vulgate  and  Peshitto  down  to  the  Talmud  and 
Targums.  These  are  not  given  in  full  in  any  other  commentary,  yet 
they  are  very  important  both  for  the  history  of  the  text  and  the  history 
of  the  exegesis. 


Crown  8 VO.  $2.25  net  (Postage  additional). 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

Ecclesiastes.  By  George  A.  Barton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical 
Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa. 

“  It  is  a  relief  to  find  a  commentator  on  Ecclesiastes  who  is  not  en¬ 
deavoring  to  defend  some  new  theory.  This  volume,  in  the  International 
Commentary  series,  treats  the  book  in  a  scholarly  and  sensible  fashion, 
presenting  the  conclusions  of  earlier  scholars  together  with  the  author’s 
own,  and  providing  thus  all  the  information  that  any  student  needs.” 

— The  Congregationalist. 
Crown  8vo.  $2.25  net  (Postage  additional). 


St.  Matthew.  By  the  Rev.  Willoughby  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow 
of  Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

“As  a  microscopic  and  practically  exhaustive  study  and  itemized  state¬ 
ment  of  the  probable  or  possible  sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and 
of  their  relations,  one  to  another,  this  work  has  not  been  surpassed. 
I  doubt  if  it  has  been  equaled.  And  the  author  is  not  by  any  means 
lacking  in  spiritual  insight.” — The  Methodist  Review  (Nashville). 

Crown  8vo.  $3.00  net. 

_ • _ 

St.  Mark.  By  the  Rev.  E.  P.  Gould,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New 

Testament  Exegesis,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

“  The  whole  make-up  is  that  of  a  thoroughly  helpful,  instructive  critical 
study  of  the  Word,  surpassing  anything  of  the  kind  ever  attempted  in 
the  English  language,  and  to  students  and  clergymen  knowing  the 
proper  use  of  a  commentary  it  will  prove  an  invaluable  aid.” 

— The  Lutheran  Quarterly. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


St.  Luke.  By  the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  sometime  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham. 

“  We  are  pleased  with  the  thoroughness  and  scientific  accuracy  of  the 
interpretations.  ...  It  seems  to  us  that  the  prevailing  characteristic  of 
the  book  is  common  sense,  fortified  by  learning  and  piety.” 

— The  Herald  and  Presbyter. 
Crown  8vo.  $3.00  net. 

Romans.  By  the  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev. 
A.  C.  Headlam,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  Kings  College,  London. 

“  We  do  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  as  the  best  commentary  on  Romans 
yet  written  in  English.  It  will  do  much  to  popularize  this  admirable 
and  much  needed  series,  by  showing  that  it  is  possible  to  be  critical  and 
scholarly  and  at  the  same  time  devout  and  spiritual,  and  intelligible  to 
plain  Bible  readers.” — The  Church  Standard, 


Crown  8 VO.  $3.00  net. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

Ephesians  and  Colossians.  By  the  Rev.  T.  K.  Abbott,  D.D., 

D.Litt.,  formerly  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  now  of  Hebrew,  Trinity  Col¬ 
lege,  Dublin. 

“An  able  and  independent  piece  of  exegesis,  and  one  that  none  of  us  can 
afford  to  be  without.  It  is  the  work  of  a  man  who  has  made  himself 
master  of  this  theme.  His  exegetical  perceptions  are  keen,  and  we  are 
especially  grateful  for  his  strong  defense  of  the  integrity  and  apostolicity 
of  these  two  great  monuments  of  Pauline  teaching.” — The  Expositor. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


Philippians  and  Philemon.  By  Rev.  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

“  Professor  Vincent’s  Commentary  appears  to  me  not  less  admirable  for 
its  literary  merit  than  for  its  scholarship  and  its  clear  and  discriminating 
discussions  of  the  contents  of  these  Epistles.” — Dr.  George  P.  Fisher. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.00  net. 


St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude.  By  the  Rev.  Charles  Bigg,  D.D., 

sometime  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  University, 
New  York. 

“  The  careful  and  thorough  student  will  find  here  a  vast  amount  of  in¬ 
formation  most  helpful  to  him  in  his  studies  and  researches.  The  inter¬ 
national  Critical  Commentary,  to  which  it  belongs,  will  prove  a  great 
boon  to  students  and  ministers.” — The  Canadian  Congregationalist. 

Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 


